1 / 4

Miranda V. Arizona

Miranda V. Arizona. By: Elise Kloppenburg. Facts of the Case. Phoenix, Arizona 1963 Ernesto Miranda, 23 years old A rrested in his home T aken to the police station I dentified by the victim T aken into an interrogation room

duff
Download Presentation

Miranda V. Arizona

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Miranda V. Arizona By: Elise Kloppenburg

  2. Facts of the Case • Phoenix, Arizona 1963 • Ernesto Miranda, 23 years old • Arrested in his home • Taken to the police station • Identified by the victim • Taken into an interrogation room • ** Miranda was never told of his rights to counsel prior to questioning ** • The law enforcement quickly obtained a signed confession from Miranda. • In the confession is clearly stated: Miranda was fully aware of his rights and he had waived those rights • Preliminary Hearing: again did not have counsel • Trial: He DID have a lawyer • It was to late at that point • Lawyer attempted to get the signed confession thrown out • He was convicted and sent to jail for 20 years • Kidnap & rape

  3. Why Was This Case Brought to the Supreme Court? MIRANDA’S SIDE • Miranda’s 5th & 6th amendment rights were ignored • Escobedo Right: evidence obtained from an illegally obtained confession is inadmissible in court • (these rules were ignored) • Gideon Rule: Felony defendants have a right to an attorney • The confession was illegally obtained and the conviction was not fair… he deserved a brand new trial ARIZONA’S SIDE • Miranda had been in trouble with law before • He was aware of the procedure • Confession signed • Conviction based upon Arizona law • Supreme court should not become “involved” in Arizona police business

  4. What Freedom or Right Was at Issue? - Miranda’s right to remain silent & his right to a legal counsel • How & Why did the Supreme Court Decide the Case as it Did? • Arizona Supreme Court denied his appeal and kept the conviction • Because Miranda signed the confession stating he was aware of his rights • Court voted 5-4 in favor • How did the Case Change how we Understand or Interpret the Constitution/Amendments? - Miranda v Arizona spelled out the rights of the accused and the responsibilities of the police. Today the Miranda Right are read upon arrest. - “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have a right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.”

More Related