Download
1 / 10
110 likes | 282 Views
Daniel Moody PD. 3 3/25/10. Miranda VS. Arizona 1966. Important Cases involving the Miranda Rights. In 1963 Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix, Arizona. He was arrested for stealing $8.00 from bank worker. While in police custody he wrote a confession stating he did the robbery.
E N D
Daniel MoodyPD. 33/25/10 Miranda VS. Arizona 1966
Important Cases involving the Miranda Rights • In 1963 Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix, Arizona. • He was arrested for stealing $8.00 from bank worker. • While in police custody he wrote a confession stating he did the robbery. • And was accused of robbery and sentenced to jail. • During the trial of Ernesto Arturo Miranda he did not specify for an attorney. • ACLU urged the Supreme Court to require police interrogations.
White’s dissent • Justice Byron White stated that self-incrimination forbids in-interrogation without the warnings specified. • Believed that releasing the prisoner is not a loss or a gain. • The court’s rule will return a killer to the streets to do more killings. • White did not support the history of Fifth Amendment. • Did not believe it had any basis in English common law. • Did not want to get involved with the criminal processes.
Miranda vs. Arizona Continued • Miranda’s right for the sixth amendment were violated and not given during interrogations. • Two days later the police department said that his rights were given prior to the interrogations. • Miranda did not get the right to remain silent and got arrested and questioned. • Two weeks later the court said that the rights were given. • the right to remain silent was not used before Miranda's arrest. • The next trial started before March 1,1966 because of oral arguments.
Confession without rights. • Police arrested Miranda and put him in a line up. • Miranda asked what he did and got told he was identified by his victims. • Miranda went for voice identification and was told was this the girl and Miranda said that’s her. • Miranda was never told before being arrested his rights. • 73-year old Alvin Moore was assigned to represent him. • Moore objected to having any evidence against Miranda used during the trials.
Miranda VS. Arizona 1966 • November of 1965 the Supreme court finally agreed to see the trial through. • Miranda was not informed of the right to remain silent before interrogations. • Miranda who as not educated in government,politcs, and laws did not know their rights. • Gary Nelson was the spokesman for Arizona. • He urged the justices to clarify their position. • He also said that police should not advise the suspects that are captured.
Continued • The second day people from other cases had arguments. • Thurgood Marshall was the last to represent his standduring the trial. • The decision was in Miranda's favor. • People in custody are to have the right to remain silent. • The opinion was released on June 1966. • Police around the US started to issue Miranda rights.
Life after Miranda VS. Arizona • The Supreme court set aside Miranda's case. • Later he was convicted to 20-30 years in prison. • Miranda was later paroled in 1972 and started selling autographed Miranda warning cards. • Miranda was later arrested for minor driving offenses. • And eventually lost his license. • In January of 1976, Miranda was murdered with lettuce knife.
Life after the trialcontinued • Miranda was always in cheap bars or clubs. • He was arrested for having a gun. • Those charges were dropped shortly after. • Miranda lost his privilege to drive a car. • The supreme court will now use better interrogation techniques. • The two suspects involved one was arrested shortly after the death of Miranda the other escaped to Mexico.
This ends my representation of the Miranda VS. Arizona 1966 • You have the right to remain silent.
