Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byJaquan Badger Modified over 8 years ago
Who was involved: Ernesto Miranda and the State of Arizona. When: 1963-1966 Where: Phoenix, Arizona Why: Arrested and charged with rape, kidnapping, and robbery.
Miranda was uneducated (didn’t have beyond a 9 th grade education) and did not know his rights to remain silent and to have a lawyer. Confessed during a 2 hour interrogation to police without a lawyer. Prosecutions whole case was based on the confession.
Miranda found Guilty of rape and kidnapping Sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison Appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court the decision but the conviction was upheld and instead appealed to Supreme Court in 1966. ◦ (his case was review along with 3 other cases Vignera v. New York, Westover v. United States, and California v. Stewart)
Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated because he was not aware of his rights and he was not told his rights. Due Process did not occur, police did not take the proper steps to inform him. Fifth Amendment – can not self incriminate Sixth Amendment – right to an attorney Was not given any of these rights during his trial so he claimed that he was charged unfairly.
Supreme Court made a Writ of Certiorari, agreed to hear the appeal of the lower court. Arguments: ◦ Defense: Did not know and was not aware of his constitutional rights (5 th and 6 th amendments) so he was not given a fair trail. And the police did not take the proper steps to inform him. ◦ Prosecution: He confessed to his crimes and when confessing he should have known that they could use his confession as evidence to convict him in court.
A previous case, Brown v. Mississippi, set the precedent that an individual cannot be force to confess. A previous case, Gideon v. Wainwright, set the precedent that a person convicted of a felony has a right to a Lawyer even if they cannot afford one. Judicial Conference,consisting of Chief Justice Earl Warren, had to decide if the constitutional rights were violated
The Oral Argument of the defense was that Miranda was denied his constitutional rights and Due Process did not occur so there was a legal issue with his conviction. The Opinion of the Court was that Miranda’s Constitutional rights were violated because of a lack of due process there for he cannot be ensured a fair trail and cannot be convicted. The new precedent created was the reading of the “Miranda Rights” at the time of arrest and booking to ensure due process.
© 2023 SlidePlayer.com Inc.
All rights reserved.