Miranda V. Arizona Court 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.

“Nonetheless, detectives began questioning Miranda, and he signed a confession approximately two hours later.”(Riley 11). Miranda was not completely clear that he had the right to remain silent and also the right to an attorney even if he couldn’t pay for one.

Miranda V. Arizona has been a case that impacted our police officers and offenders and is still in place today. In 1996 Phoenix Arizona Ernesto Miranda a 18 year old school drop out with a 8th grade reading level was convicted of kidnaping and rapping a 18 year old girl.. He was a troubled teen growing up convicted of small offenses but this offense made the headlights. The women who was raped went home and told her family, one day her brother sees a car that matches the description and part of the license plate Ernesto Miranda’s car matching the description and was asked to come down to the police station for questioning. Ernesto Miranda lines up with other men on a line and the women says “that looks like him but I would have to hear his voice to fully identify him”, As the integration went on he was told that a women had positively accused him, which was false. Not only did the police lie to him but after that the investigation was on for two hours, he then signed a written confession. He was found guilty and He later states that he had no right to counsel and was never read his rights this case was taken to the Arizona supreme court. The court supported the ruling so Miranda and his lawyer now took it to the united states supreme court , the constitutional issue was the 5th amendment establish the people’s rights to not have witness against them self and the 6th amendment which guarantees criminal defendants the right to an attorney was also violated. In the Supreme

Ernesto Miranda was arrested for a violent crime in Phoenix, Arizona and was taken to a police station for questioning. Officers put him into a room, where they questioned him for many hours. They came out with a confession Miranda had signed. The confession form included a paragraph saying the confession had been made voluntarily. The typed paragraph said Miranda had signed the confession “with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me.” Miranda’s confession was used against him in court, and he was convicted.5th Amendment says that a person involved in a criminal case cannot be forced to be a witness against himself. In other words, only statements that are

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

A witness accused Ernesto Miranda, A poor Mexican immigrant in Arizona in 1963 for committing a crime. When the police arrested Miranda, they did not tell Miranda his rights to not self incriminate and that he was appointed to an attorney if he could not provide one

Miranda v. Arizona was a case where Ernesto Miranda was accused of raping a women. At the time of his arrest he did not know his rights and that he had the right to remain silent and get a lawyer. He confessed orally and in a written form, but he never knew his

This case had to do with Ernesto Miranda v. Arizona. Miranda was in interrogation with the police and he was not told about his rights to remain silent and the right to counsel. Even though he was not informed of his rights he still signed a confession saying that what he said what he said to the police in the interrogation was completely voluntary. On the top of each page was the statement, “I, Ernesto A. Miranda, do hereby swear that I make this statement voluntarily and of my own free will, with no threats, coercion, or promises of immunity, and with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me.” He was not fully acknowledged of his rights until 1:30 when he was signing his confession after a two hour long interrogation. This case

“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney...this is what you hear on all your favorite cop shows. But, where did this saying come from? In 1963 Ernesto Miranda a ninth grade dropout (PBS) was arrested and charged with kidnaping, rape, and armed robbery. The police interrogated him for two hours. During the question Miranda supposedly admitted to all the crimes. The police then used Miranda’s confession to convict him in court. While in prison Miranda appealed his case and eventually brought it to the Supreme Court. The court ruled five to four in favor of Miranda. The Supreme Court was correct in their ruling of Miranda v. Arizona, because the majority opinion correctly argued the fifth and sixth amendments. The dissenting opinion arguments regarding the fifth and sixth amendments were incorrect and in other cases involving due process this amendment was abused. In similar cases the court ruled in favor of the defendant because he was harmed during the interrogation process.

     This case had to do with an Ernest Miranda who raped a Patty McGee*. After extracting a written confession from the rapist about the situation, Miranda’s lawyer argued that it was not valid since the Phoenix Police Department failed to read Miranda his rights, also in violation of the Sixth Amendment which is the right to counsel. Some factors that helped support Miranda’s arguments were that the suspect had requested and been denied an opportunity to consult with a lawyer; the suspect had not been effectively warned about his right to remain silent; and an incriminating statement must have been given by the suspect. The author of the Arizona court’s decision, former U.S. Senator and

Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966) case, Ernesto Miranda was arrested for the kidnapping and rape of a young woman in Phoenix, Arizona. After two hours of interrogation by police officers, Miranda signed a confession to the rape charge on forms that included the typed statement: "I do hereby swear that I make this statement voluntarily and of my own free will, with no threats, coercion, or promises of immunity, and with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me." However, he was not told of his right to have counsel present during questioning or his right to remain silent, therefore during trial his court-appointed lawyer objected to the written and oral confessions. His objection was over-ruled and Miranda was convicted to 20-30

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.

However, upon further examination of the confession letter that was written and signed by Miranda, officials had found that no specific rights, he was saying he understood to be waived, were listed on that confession form to begin with (Twardy,

Introduction: Miranda v. Arizona was a case that questioned if suspects 5th and 6th Amendment rights were being violated after they were arrested. Should the police advise suspects of their rights before interrogation? The court system was worried that suspects were being forced into a confession without fully being made aware of their rights. The Miranda case has a lot to do with how interrogations are handled today.

If an officer does not read a defendant’s rights to him or her prior to obtaining a confession, then it is possible that the given statement could be inadmissible in court. There is nothing than can be done if felon waives his rights, and if a statement has to be given within a six hour time-frame upon incarceration. In Miranda v. Arizona (1966), when a person is in confinement, he or she has be informed of their privileges. Suspects are to be told that they need to not say anything due to the fact that their confessions may be useful to indicate their fault when it comes time for their trial. It is up to the suspects to determine if they want an attorney; furthermore, one can be provided if a felon cannot afford one.