AMH 3552, Second Short Assignment

This assignment is due on Thursday, April 3, in class at the start of class. Please review the syllabus and website regarding plagiarism, page length, etc. Your paper should be double spaced, you should put page numbers on your pages, and you should cite appropriately.

Problem:

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) is one of the Warren Court’s famous criminal law cases. Write an essay in which you compare the analysis in Miranda to that found in a) Hurtado v. California, b) Mapp v. Ohio and c) Gideon v. Wainwright. Obviously the four opinions concern different constitutional issues (right to a grand jury, right to a lawyer, right to have illegally seized evidence presented at trial, and right to get “Miranda warnings”). While you should discuss (briefly) the different constitutional issues addressed in each, your essay should concentrate on the legal logic of the opinions. You might find it helpful to think in terms both of comparing Warren Court analysis to the late nineteenth century (Hurtado) and in considering the extent to which the various Warren Court decisions (Mapp, Gideon and Miranda) resemble one another. You should also discuss the differences in analysis offered by dissenting and concurring opinions, if any.