Miranda vs Arizona

Background

• A Mexican immigrant by the name Ernesto Miranda
• Charged with kidnapping and the rape of an 18 year old girl..
• Was interrogated for two hours and was pressured into giving a confession without being read his rights.
• This violated the Fifth and Sixth Amendment.

Fifth & Sixth Amendments

• Fifth Amendment gives you protection against self-incrimination.
• Sixth Amendment gives you the right to an attorney.

The Process

• This case started at the Arizona state court.
• Then was appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court. They upheld the case.
• Then appealed to the mother of all courts the United States Supreme Court,which agreed to hear it along with four other similar cases.

Miranda's Argument

• Petitioner side (Miranda)- They clearly violated his 5th & 6th Amendment and also violated the Escobedo rule( evidence obtained from an illegal confession will not be used in court).
• This alone without going in depth should deserve a new trial.

Arizona's Argument

• The Respondent(Arizona)- said that Ernesto knew the police procedure very well, he was no stranger
• He signed his confession voluntarily
• The prosecution was done through Arizona law
• The Respondent says that the Supreme Court Should leave it as it is and not cripple the work of their police force

Arizona's Argument (continued)

• The imprisonment was just
• The Respondent says that the Supreme Court Should leave it as it is and not cripple the work of their police force

Ruling

• The Supreme Court ruled a 5-4 in favor of Miranda.
• This case was judged by Chief Justice Earl Warren.
• They ruled that the prosecuters confession could not be used in court because he was not clearly told his rights.

Ruling (continuation)

• This was supported by the 5th Amendment saying that a suspect or criminal has a right to refuse or go against himself.
• Also used the 6th Amendment with gaurantees the right to an attorney

Impact on Society

• Without this case police could push us into confessions such as long hours of interrogations.
• we would be denied our rights from the Constitution and taking advantage of because we had a criminal background and should know our rights.

Impact on Society (continuation)

• This would just give them a way to solve crimes by falsely accusing someone of a crime.

Personal Opinion

• Personally I feel that he was taking advantage of.
• But this is a man known to the criminal life and knew he committed the crime.
• If the police force would of just read him his rights it would all be over

Work Cited

• http://www.uscourts.gov/multimedia/podcasts/Landmarks/MirandavArizona.aspx
• http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_miranda.html
• http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_759
• http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar23.html

Works Citied (continuation)

• http://blog.jeffcitylaw.com/the-police-didnt-read-me-my-rights-will-they-dr...
• http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2014/03/ernesto-mirandas-role-in-constit...
• http://galleryhip.com/chief-justice-earl-warren.html