Presentation on theme: "By: Megan Devin Political Science December 4, 2014."— Presentation transcript:
By: Megan Devin Political Science December 4, 2014
Ernest Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and raping an 18 year old girl. He later admitted to doing the crime during a 2 hour interview with police officers. He signed a statement that would eventually be used against him in court to find him guilty. The police never informed him of his rights because they thought that he was already familiar with them since it was not his first arrest. He appealed his court to the Arizona Supreme Court and later to the Supreme Court.
Vignera was picked up by New York police in connection with the robbery of a dress shop. He orally admitted to doing the robbery and was placed under formal arrest. He was then transferred to a different facility, where he was questioned by an assistant district attorney in the presence of a hearing reporter who transcribed the questions and answers. At trial, the oral confession and the transcript were presented to the jury. Vignera was found guilty of first degree robbery and sentenced to years imprisonment.
Westover was arrested by local police in Kansas City as a suspect in two Kansas City robberies and taken to a local police station. Westover was interrogated the night of the arrest and the next morning by local police. Then, FBI agents continued the interrogation at the station. After two- and-a-half hours of interrogation by the FBI, Westover signed separate confessions, which had been prepared by one of the agents during the interrogation, to each of the two robberies in California. These statements were introduced at trial. Westover was convicted of the California robberies and sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment on each count.
In the course of investigating a series of purse-snatch robberies in which one of the victims died of injuries inflicted by her assailant, Stewart was identified as the endorser of checks stolen in one of the robberies. Police arrested Stewart, his wife, and three other people who were visiting him. Stewart was placed in a cell, and, over the next five days, was interrogated on nine different occasions. During the ninth interrogation session, Stewart stated that he had robbed the deceased, but had not meant to hurt her. He was later convicted of robbery and first-degree murder with that statement.
The issue of law in question was whether or not a statement from the accused could be submitted and used in court against them without them being aware of their: 5 th Amendment right against self-incrimination and their 6 th Amendment right to an attorney before the interrogation started.
Supreme Court argued the case from February 28-March 1, 1966 On June 13, 1966, they decided on a final verdict In a final vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court favored with Miranda instead of the state of Arizona
Written by Chief Justice Earl Warren Warren explained that the prosecution could not use “Miranda's confession as evidence in a criminal trial because the police had failed to first inform Miranda of his right to an attorney and against self-incrimination.” Established ‘Miranda Rights’
Written by Justices Harlan, Stewart, and White The main point of the dissenting opinion was that they thought the new laws would take away all pressures and “discourage any confession at all.”
If a person is not read their Miranda Rights, any statement they make will not hold up in court. Miranda Rights: 1. A person has the right to remain silent. 2. Anything they say may be used against them in court. 3. They have the right to an attorney, either retained by them or appointed by the court. 4. They may waive these rights, but they still have the right to ask for an attorney any time during the interrogation.
Ernest Miranda Miranda, on the far left, in a police line up
Miranda (right) with attorney (left)
Gribben, Mark. “Miranda vs. Arizona: The Crime that Changed American Justice,” Crime Library; available from iranda/10.html; Internet; accessed 20 November McBride, Alex. “Miranda v. Arizona (1966),” PBS.org; available from anda.html; Internet; accessed 20 November "Miranda v. Arizona," LII / Legal Information Institute (Cornell University Law School); available from Internet; accessed 20 November 2014.
“Miranda v. Arizona Case Brief,” 4 Law School; available from Internet; accessed 20 November “Summary of the Decision,” Street Law, Inc.; available from ecision; Internet; accessed 20 November “Facts and Case Summary,” United States Courts; available from involved/constitution-activities/fifth-amendment/miranda- criminal-defense/facts-case-summary.aspx; Internet; accessed 01 December 2014.