The And Line Ups : Miranda V. Arizona

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 1963, Ernesto Miranda was accused and arrested on the charges of kidnapping and rape of a woman in Phoenix, Arizona. Miranda was then taken to an interrogation room where he signed a written confession saying he did the crime after two hours of questioning. His confession was then admitted as evidence at his trial, and was convicted and sentenced 20-30 years in prison. The case was taken to the Supreme Court as a consolidation of 3 other cases similar to the Miranda v. Arizona case, Westover v. United States, Vignera v. New York, and California v. Stewart. The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice Earl Warren and was joined by Justices Black, Douglas, Brennan, and Fortas. The dissenting opinion was written Justice Harlan and was joined by Justices Stewart and White. Harlan said it was “poor constitutional law” which would result in “harmful consequences for the country at large.” White asserted it would have “a corrosive effect on the criminal law as an effective device to prevent crime.” Justice Clark wrote a dissenting part opinion. The court case was argued on February 28 and March 1 and 2, 1966 and was decided on June 13, 1966. The case is one that was considered to be as a result of the legal aid movement of the 1960s. The concept of the movement was to provide those accused of crimes with legal support they require on their behalf.

“The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise

Facts: Miranda gave incriminating evidence during police interrogations without prior notification of their fights under the 5th amendment.

The case Miranda v. Arizona that took place in 1963 changed the way police officer question/interrogate their suspect. Back in those days, police officers used to get away with interrogating suspects without informing them of their constitutional rights until the Miranda case came about. Concerning the Miranda case, the Supreme Court ruled that by detaining suspects before questioning they must be informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and against self-incrimination (“Miranda v. Arizona,” 2006). In the year 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix. He was charged with rape, kidnapping, and robbery. The police officers that arrested him begin to question him without informing him of his constitutional rights to an attorney

Ernesto Miranda was arrested in 1966 charged with rape and kidnapping. In the process of being arrested Miranda was not informed of his rights leading into interrogation. In interrogation Miranda supposedly confessed to committing a crime that the police had recorded. As the time came to prosecute Miranda the only evidence they could go off on was his confession. After Miranda was then convicted of rape and kidnapping that sentenced him to 20-30 years in prison. He then petition to Arizona court saying, “Police had unconstitutionally obtained my confession.” (McBride. (2006). Expanding…Rights.) But Arizona court disagreed and kept on with conviction. So then Miranda had appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1966 that lead to voting and the outcome was 5 to 4. Then Warren the Chief Justice had ruled that Miranda’s confession isn’t enough evidence to use in

Miranda vs. Arizona began with Ernesto Miranda, who had been charged with many serious crimes such as rape, kidnapping,

Even though Ernesto Miranda was sentenced to prison and spent 11years in the correctional system, his case became famous and obtained historical significance. Specifically, the society was alarmed by the increasing police powers and negligence on the duty, which may lead to self-incrimination (Zalman, 2010). Given that Miranda was not aware of his Fifth Amendment right and was not given any warning, the police certainly violated the law; therefore, the prosecution could not have utilized Miranda’s confession as the evidence in a criminal trial. This fact was later used in the newspapers and other media to create a controversy. The Fifth and Sixth Amendments rights gained significant attention in public because they provided suspected persons

In 1966 the Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement must inform detained criminal suspects of their constitutional rights prior to police interrogation. This decision was the result of the Miranda v. Arizona case. The case began in 1963 when a man by the name of Ernesto Miranda was arrested and charged with robbery, rape, and kidnapping. Miranda was not informed of his constitutional rights prior to his interrogation. In addition, during his questioning Miranda had no counsel present despite the fact that he had a history of mental instability. Within the two hours he was questioned, Miranda allegedly confessed to the charges. His confession then went on to serve as the only evidence presented at the trial. Miranda was

The majority opinion in this case was for Miranda, the majority opinion was wrote by Chief Justice Earl Warren. The Majority said that Miranda’s confession could not be used in court because the police had not informed Miranda of his rights to a attorney, and against self-incrimination, which are rights guaranteed to citizens of the United States by the fifth, and sixth amendments to the United States Constitution. The fifth amendment says that suspects of crimes have to be informed of their rights during an arrest including the right to remain silent. The sixth amendment says that people have to be informed of right to a fair hearing after the arrest. (Miranda v. Arizona www.kid.laws.com)

Alvarado, where seventeen year old MIchael Alvarado, was brought in for questioning and was not read his Miranda rights before being interrogated. In court he was convicted of second degree murder and attempted robbery. With the statements made during the interrogation, the previous rulings was that you don’t have to read the Miranda rights to a “reasonable person” who knows that they can get up and leave anytime. The case was appealed, since Michael was a minor and there are general rule protecting minors.

Arizona all started on the date march 3, 1963, when a young eighteen year old girl was kidnapped and raped near Phoenix, Arizona. The police were on the search for the individual who was responsible for this crime for ten days until on the morning of March 13, they found a man named Ernest A. Miranda. Miranda was a young twenty three year old Hispanic man who wasn’t exactly the best educated person out there. Miranda was taken back to the police station in phoenix, Arizona where he was identified in a lineup by the young women who was kidnapped and raped. After being identified two police officers had escorted Miranda to interrogation room number two around eleven thirty am. In the interrogation room the two police failed to notify Miranda of his rights, but still continued to question Miranda of the crime. Miranda was refusing that he committed the crimes of kidnapping and rape until about two hours of interrogation by the two police officers, finally getting the confession they were hoping to get out of Miranda. The confession was in Miranda’s hand writing, explaining in detail of the crime he had committed on March 3, 1963. At the very top of the confession statement was Miranda’s signature below a typed statement stating that the statement was given without threats, promises, or immunity; the statement also stated, "With full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me .”(Miranda v. Arizona 1966) With

The last fifty years of American law have changed drastically due to numerous “landmark” court cases. For those who have studied these landmark cases, Miranda v. Arizona is one of the most crucial of these cases. Until the Miranda v. Arizona trial of 1966, when a person was arrested, they were not given a fair awareness of their rights as a citizen, which often times resulted in the self incrimination or unknowingly admitting to guilt (McBride). The Miranda decision provided a constitutional and reasonable way of allowing the suspect to fully embrace their fifth and sixth amendment rights without any form of admission of guilt.

This decision led to the creation of the Miranda Rule. This rule says that before law enforcement can take an individual into custody, they have to inform them of their 5th and 6th amendment rights. Police now are required to issue this warning: “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can or will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to consult with your attorney before being questioned by the police, and to have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you before questioning….” If the Miranda warning is not read to the individual being arrested (or any time before being investigated), the evidence acquired during their interrogation is not admissible in court. (384 U.S. 436, 1966.) This case plays such a huge part in the criminal justice system today because people that are unaware of their rights as citizens can be protected. The decision in Miranda V. Arizona is constantly used as precedent today. Two cases that Miranda v Arizona has had precedent over are Missouri V. Seibert and Maryland V. Shatzer.

Additionally, Miranda’s appointed defense attorney fails to call witnesses in his defense. Thus, as a result of the mounting evidence the prosecution produced against Miranda, and the ineffective counsel assigned to represent him at trial, Miranda was therefore convicted as charged with the kidnapping and rape receiving 20 – 30 years for each count. (Court Case)