Miranda Case Summary

Ernesto Miranda’s written confession confession included a signed statement saying that he had a full understanding of his fifth amendment rights. Miranda argued that he was never told his rights nor did he understand them. In the fifth amendment of the United States constitution it says that an accused person cannot be forced to witness against their self, also the sixth amendment states that the accused shall have the assistance of counsel for his defense. Miranda claimed that he neither knew his fifth amendment right to remain silent or his right to have a lawyer present during questioning. He argued that a suspect who didn’t have any prior knowledge of his rights would feel pressured to answer all the questions posed by the interrogators. They used his written testimony to convict Miranda. Since Miranda didn’t know he didn’t have to answer all the questions, his confession wasn’t voluntary (alavardohistory). Therefore since it wasn’t voluntary he was forced to “witness” against himself. As a result the actions of the police violated the fifth amendment.

This case is one that changed the way the United States Police forces will work forever. Every human in the world has natural born rights. Even people who have been arrested have rights, ‘The rights of the accused’. These rights are the main point of this court case.

Everyone has heard the term Miranda Rights, whether that be when taking a law class, during the course of a television show, or perhaps through personal experience with their use, but what do these two words really mean, where did they come from and how to they apply to an individual's everyday life? The answers to this question are neither simple nor fully answered today, as challenges to Miranda Rights appear in courtrooms routinely. However, the basis for Miranda Rights can be traced back to a landmark case handed down from the Supreme Court of the United States in 1965 entitled Miranda v. Arizona. Ernesto Miranda was an immigrant from Mexico living in the Phoenix, Arizona area in 1963 when he was accused of

In 1966 , Ernesto Miranda was arrested and charged with rape, kidnapping , and robbery. The problem was that Miranda was not informed of his rights before the police interrogation and while the two hour interrogation, Miranda confessed to committing the crimes which police recorded without Mirandas Knowledge. McBride, Alex. "Miranda v. Arizona (1966)." PBS. PBS, Dec. 2006. Web. 24 Oct. 2014.. Miranda who did not even finish the 9th grade and also is known to have a history of being mentally unstable, who did not have any counsel by his side during the interrogation. In court at his trial the prosecution’s case was focused mainly of his confession and thats about it, no matter what in

Everyone has heard the term Miranda Rights, whether that be when taking a law class, during the course of a television show, or perhaps through personal experience with their use, but what do these two words really mean, where did they come from and how to they apply to an individual's everyday life? The answers to this question are neither simple nor fully answered today, as challenges to Miranda Rights appear in courtrooms routinely. However, the basis for Miranda Rights can be traced back to a landmark case handed down from the Supreme Court of the United States in 1965 entitled Miranda v. Arizona. Ernesto Miranda was an immigrant from Mexico living in the Phoenix, Arizona area in 1963 when he was accused of

Imagine a man sitting in a strange room, afraid of the people there with him – they are people that could ruin his life forever if he says the wrong thing. He is panicking and he feels like everything in the world is working against him to get him in trouble. He is in a police station with officers questioning him intensely and he does not know how seriously they will take what he says. What if he misspeaks? What if he accidentally says something he does not mean in the context the police will use? These are fears that go through the minds of people taken into custody and accused of committing crimes. Ernesto Miranda was in a similar situation when he was being questioned based on circumstantial evidence linking him to a kidnapping and rape.

Who? What? When? Where? Why? How? These are all questions evolving from the recent Miranda V Arizona court case. Ernesto Miranda was arrested in his home on March 13th, 1963 and brought to a police station. They had reason to believe he had connection to a kidnapping and rape, along with theft and armed robbery. The victim of the kidnapping could not recognize Miranda as her attacker, so the police escorted Miranda to an interrogation room. Miranda was interrogated for two hours, and during these two hours the police acquired a written confession to the crime from Miranda. Of course, Miranda went to trial for his actions, but during the trial, Miranda’s attorney argued in court that since the police admitted to not explaining Miranda’s rights to him, this was a violation of his fifth amendment rights. Even with all of this Miranda’s written confession was still used as evidence against him in court.

After refusing to sign the paper, and being interrogated, he finally confessed. Miranda's lawyers claimed that Miranda was not informed on any of his rights. Rights he should have been aware of included his right to keep quiet and his right to an attorney. He was charged with rape and kidnapping, but wanted to go to a higher court. This is when he went to the Supreme Court. An investigation would take place to see if the arresting officer followed the right rules. The one who led court was Chief Justice Warren. In court, there was a 5-4 decision. Ernesto would no longer be convicted of his crime because his rights were not made aware to him. The judge stated that a person's rights must be said to them when they are arrested. Miranda should have been told of his fifth and sixth amendment rights. His confession was no longer valid, and he would get a new trial. Different evidence though, did confirm that he was the one responsible for the crime. He was sentenced to eleven years in prison. Even though he'd need to spend time in jail, his case changed both the world, and the procedures of police

Throughout the interrogation, the police did not tell Miranda about his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination or his Sixth Amendment right to an attorney (“Miranda v. Arizona Podcast”). Miranda was question for two hours without a lawyer. Miranda eventually gave the police details of the crime that closely matched the victims story. He agreed to write his confession in a written statement which he wrote out under the words, “this confession was made with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me” (“Miranda Rights”). His confession was used as evidence when he was tried and convicted for the crime by the court.

The first case was Miranda's case v. Arizona. In the case, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in his place of residence and taken to the police station where the witness identified him. Then, he was interrogated for two hours without any notification of his rights. At the end of the interrogation, Miranda wrote a confession. In the trial, Miranda's confession was brought to the court and he was found guilty. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona said that Miranda's rights were not violated in retrieving the confession.

Ernesto Miranda was arrested on March 13, 1963 by the Phoenix Police Department. Ernesto was accused of robbery, kidnapping, and raping eighteen year old women. He was accused ten days later after he was arrested. Miranda was then interrogated two hours after his arrest. Miranda signed a written confession while during his interrogation. He was not aware that he was protected from self-incrimination.

Ernesto Miranda was a poor man who lived in Arizona majority of his life and who always had a run in with the law. Miranda has been arrested before for armed robbery and was sentenced to a year in a reform school. In the case against him in Arizona, Miranda was very aware of his rights and knew he didn’t have to say anything during interrogation or sign a paper

Whenever a crime takes place, the police arrive at the scene and must tell the one they arrested the Miranda rights. In world book online: Stanley L. Kutler, Ph.D notes, “Miranda V. Arizona was a case in which the supreme court in the United States limited the power of police to question suspects.” Miranda was a criminal who kidnapped and raped several women. He was not able to understand English very well, for Spanish was his language. When he was arrested, he was interrogated for about two hours. He was not given his rights in Spanish, therefore he did understand what they had told him. This means he was not given his right to an attorney or to remain silent. He then confessed orally and in written form. He then took it to the supreme court.

Ernesto Miranda is of Spanish-American descent, 23 years of age, and was arrested in March of 1963. He is accused of kidnapping and rape. Miranda was taken to the police department and was placed and identified in a line-up. Police officers questioned Miranda about the crimes without telling him he had the right to legal counsel. They also failed to tell him that everyone has the right to remain silent. In a two-hour period of interrogation, police were able to obtain an oral confession from him stating that he committed the crimes in question.

Even though the police did not charge Miranda with anything he remained calm and showed no signs of guilt. Later when they arrived at the police station they brought him to a room they called the “sweat room”. This is the room where the police officers try to make the suspect anxious and nervous. While in the sweat room the officers asked about another robbery in which Miranda fit the description, as well as the rape of Jane Doe. He denied have a part in either crime. Usually in sweat rooms cops tried whatever methods they could usually by playing “good cop, bad cop”. But with this case the officers didn’t let Miranda know what they already knew. Miranda was put into a lineup and identified by Jane Doe and BB RR the victim Miranda’s first crime, a robbery. When the officers brought Miranda back into the sweat room he asked how he did. Officer CC responded, “Not too good, Ernie”. Jane Doe and BB RR asked to hear his voice to confirm it was actually Miranda. They both positively identified Ernesto Miranda as their attackers. Miranda was then put under arrest and charged for the kidnapping and rape of Jane Doe and robbery of Barbara Roe. Under the United States Constitution every American has certain rights. This following statement is described in the 5th amendment of the constitution. Which include not being able to incriminate themselves or provide evidence that can possibly lead