Miranda V. Arizona By: Elise Kloppenburg. Facts of the Case Phoenix, Arizona 1963 Ernesto Miranda, 23 years old Arrested in his home Taken to the police.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Christina Ascolillo.  Who was involved: Ernesto Miranda and the State of Arizona.  When:  Where: Phoenix, Arizona  Why: Arrested and charged.

Advertisements

Presented by Tim, and Brendan. Arizona V. Miranda.

The Government must respect ALL legal rights of all people. It must treat people fairly.

What would society look like if Eric Cartman was a police officer.

The Investigation Phase Criminal Law and Procedure.

Vivek Barbhaiya and John Coriasco

Rights of the Accused th – Amendment Presumption of innocence Presumption of innocence Manzanar –one of our big failings Reasonable doubt Reasonable.

Do you know your civil rights?

Miranda Rights 5th Amendment

Warren Court. Warm-up Do you have rights when you are being arrested? What rights do you have?

Miranda v. Arizona.

BY: KATIE LOSINIECKI Miranda v. Arizona. Facts Ernesto Miranda was arrested in 1966 for the kidnapping and rape of an 18 year old woman After being interrogated.

1966 Chief Justice Warren’s handwritten notes about the case.

Miranda v. Arizona 1966 Read Miranda v. Arizona Parties Facts Issue.

Miranda v Arizona Escobedo v Illinois By Austin Lallier.

Miranda vs. Arizona 1966.

Miranda v. Arizona. Facts of the Case Police arrest Ernesto Miranda after the victim identifies him in lineup Police interrogate Miranda for two hours.

U.S. Constitutional Amendments 1-10

By: Holden Luce.  Mapp was accused of harboring a criminal involved in a bombing case.  The Officers confronted Mapp at her home and demanded that she.

{ Criminal Trial Procedure What happens when the police arrest a criminal suspect?

Arrests and Miranda. 2 Copyright and Terms of Service Copyright © Texas Education Agency, These materials are copyrighted © and trademarked ™ as.

An Overview of The Mapp, Gideon, Escobedo, and Miranda cases. Copyright 2010; The Nichols Law Firm, PLLC; By Atty. Brendon G. Basiga.

Interrogations and Confessions The Trial Pages

III. Rights of the Accused. A. Exclusionary Rule Exclusionary Rule – Supreme Court ruled any evidence collected illegally cannot be used in federal court.

Chapter 1 The Pursuit of Justice Unit #1 Notes Packet.

Civil Liberties.  It is often said in the American justice system that it is better to allow ten guilty people to go free than to let one innocent person.

Miranda v Arizona Rights of the Accused. Citations 384 U.S. 436 (1966) oDocket # 759 oArgued February 28, 1966 o Decider June 13, 1966.

Gideon vs Wainwright 1963 By: Amanda Snizek Period 6.

Chapter 22 Rights of the Accused. A. Protections 1.Nothing can protect you against being accused of a crime 2.5 th, 6 th and 8 th Amendments help protect.

Call To Order Complete the following statement: You have the right to remain silent… And take out your homework!!!

Miranda vs. Arizona Right to Remain Silent.

Ashley Nine March 25, 2010 Period 7.  Poor living immigrant from Mexico living in Arizona.  He was charged with rape and kidnapping.  He was arrested.

Unit 4 Lesson 8: Miranda v. Arizona

Homework: Read/OL 14.3 for Monday FrontPage: Have 3 worksheets on your desk.

How have the decisions of the Supreme Court protected people accused of crimes? What rights are accused people guaranteed? Landmark Supreme Court Cases.

Miranda v. Arizona. Ernesto Miranda 1966 Charged & convicted of kidnapping, rape, and armed robbery charges second trial, with his confession excluded.

Arrests and Miranda.  Right to a grand jury  Protection against double jeopardy  Protection against self-incrimination  Right to due process  Custody.

Miranda v. Arizona GREYSON PETTUS PLS 211 MR. NOEL DECEMBER 2ND, 2015.

Chapter 20: Civil Liberties: Protecting Individual Rights Section 3.

 Online Miranda quiz Online Miranda quiz. The constitutional implications of custodial interrogation.

The Warren Court ( ) Appointed by Eisenhower Liberal period in court’s history Protected Civil Liberties & First Amendment Rights Malapportionment.

How have the decisions of the Supreme Court protected people accused of crimes? What rights are accused people guaranteed? Landmark Supreme Court Cases.

Land Mark Supreme Court Cases Assignment

Supreme Court Cases of the 60s. Mapp v. Ohio, 1961 What happened? - illegal search of home found “obscene materials”. Mapp was convicted. Brought to court.

Miranda Warnings. Copyright © Texas Education Agency All rights reserved. Images and other multimedia content used with permission. Objective Students.

Miranda: Its Meaning and Application Chapter 6 Basic Criminal Procedures, 3/E by Edward E. Peoples PRENTICE HALL ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle.

The Warren Court and judicial activism “The biggest damn fool mistake I ever made”, Dwight D. Eisenhower on Earl Warren, quoted in 1977 Chief Justice,

 Dates: Debated: Feb. 28, March 1 and 2, 1966 Decided: June 13, 1966  Ruling: The prosecution could not use Miranda's confession as evidence in a criminal.

Tracing Our Rights

DUE PROCESS. Procedural Due Process v. Substantive Due Process Procedural follows a set procedure, the same for all the accused Such as counsel, unreasonable.

Entry Into the System Arrests and Miranda.

Miranda v. Arizona.

Judicial Branch Famous Trials.

Defining the meaning of the terms in the warning

Tori Roupe and Haley Leavines

Aim: What are the protections offered by the case of Miranda vs

By Michael Cleary Period 8 10/3/13 College Business Law Mr. Como

Amendments in ACTION: The Fifth Amendment

Entry Into the System Arrests and Miranda.

Miranda v. Arizona 1966.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) The Warren Court.

Landmark Supreme Court Cases

Fifth and Sixth Amendments

Amendments in ACTION: The Fifth Amendment

Defendants’ Rights Edgenuity Lessons 3.4 and 3.5.

Amendments in ACTION: The Fifth Amendment

Miranda v. Arizona Matthew & Noah.

The Warren Court AP US History.

Presentation transcript:

Miranda V. Arizona By: Elise Kloppenburg

Facts of the Case Phoenix, Arizona 1963 Ernesto Miranda, 23 years old Arrested in his home Taken to the police station Identified by the victim Taken into an interrogation room ** Miranda was never told of his rights to counsel prior to questioning ** The law enforcement quickly obtained a signed confession from Miranda. In the confession is clearly stated: Miranda was fully aware of his rights and he had waived those rights Preliminary Hearing: again did not have counsel Trial: He DID have a lawyer -It was to late at that point -Lawyer attempted to get the signed confession thrown out -He was convicted and sent to jail for 20 years -Kidnap & rape

Why Was This Case Brought to the Supreme Court? MIRANDA’S SIDE Miranda’s 5 th & 6 th amendment rights were ignored Escobedo Right: evidence obtained from an illegally obtained confession is inadmissible in court (these rules were ignored) Gideon Rule: Felony defendants have a right to an attorney The confession was illegally obtained and the conviction was not fair… he deserved a brand new trial ARIZONA’S SIDE Miranda had been in trouble with law before He was aware of the procedure Confession signed Conviction based upon Arizona law Supreme court should not become “involved” in Arizona police business

What Freedom or Right Was at Issue? - Miranda’s right to remain silent & his right to a legal counsel How & Why did the Supreme Court Decide the Case as it Did? -Arizona Supreme Court denied his appeal and kept the conviction -Because Miranda signed the confession stating he was aware of his rights -Court voted 5-4 in favor How did the Case Change how we Understand or Interpret the Constitution/Amendments? - Miranda v Arizona spelled out the rights of the accused and the responsibilities of the police. Today the Miranda Right are read upon arrest. - “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have a right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.”