Miranda v. Arizona.

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.
CJ305: Legal Foundations of Criminal Evidence Welcome to Unit 6! Instructor: K. Austin Zimmer, J.D. Make sure you adjust your speakers and audio settings.
50 51.
The Government must respect ALL legal rights of all people. It must treat people fairly.
The Investigation Phase Criminal Law and Procedure.
Vivek Barbhaiya and John Coriasco
Do you know your civil rights?
By: Megan Devin Political Science December 4, 2014.
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.
Miranda v. Arizona 1966 Read Miranda v. Arizona Parties Facts Issue.
Miranda vs. Arizona 1966.
Daniel Moody PD. 3 3/25/10 Miranda VS. Arizona 1966.
Criminal Procedure for the Criminal Justice Professional 11 th Edition John N. Ferdico Henry F. Fradella Christopher Totten Prepared by Tony Wolusky Interrogations,
Miranda v. Arizona. Facts of the Case Police arrest Ernesto Miranda after the victim identifies him in lineup Police interrogate Miranda for two hours.
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.
Reem K, Madeline R, Miranda G, Emily K, & Britney F Government 4 th Hour Mr. Baker.
Rights Warning/Waiver Certificate
Chapter 1 The Pursuit of Justice Unit #1 Notes Packet.
Miranda v Arizona Rights of the Accused. Citations 384 U.S. 436 (1966) oDocket # 759 oArgued February 28, 1966 o Decider June 13, 1966.
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
SELF-INCRIMINATION “No person…shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself[.]” The 5 th Amendment “I plead the Fifth!”
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.
 Online Miranda quiz Online Miranda quiz. The constitutional implications of custodial interrogation.
Supreme Court Cases on Self Incrimination Sarah Claypoole.
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.
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.
Know Your Rights Santa Teresa High School Intro to LPSCS.
#lawday2016.
Entry Into the System Arrests and Miranda.
#lawday2016.
Marisa Hanning Emily Bendik Katie Kraeer
Criminal Law ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS Why does conflict develop? How can governments ensure citizens are treated fairly?
Miranda Rights.
Miranda Warning Law Enforcement I.
Warm-up Has anyone tried to get you to confess to something you didn’t do? How did this happen? Have you ever confessed to something and then regretted.
Miranda Rights Reem K, Madeline R, Miranda G, Emily K, & Britney F
The University of Adelaide, School of Computer Science
Tori Roupe and Haley Leavines
Aim: What are the protections offered by the case of Miranda vs
Miranda v. Arizona (1966).
Miranda Warnings.
Entry Into the System Arrests and Miranda.
Pre-trial arrest and custody
Miranda v. Arizona 1966.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) The Warren Court.
Landmark Supreme Court Cases
#lawday2016.
Ch. 3-2 The Fifth Amendment Right to Remain Silent
Essential Question: How did the decisions of the Supreme Court impact civil liberties in the 1960s & 1970s? Warm-Up Question: ?
Miranda Rights You have the right to remain silent…
Essential Question: How did the decisions of the Supreme Court impact civil liberties in the 1960s & 1970s?
Rights Warning/Waiver Certificate
Turbulent Times (The 1960s and 1970s
Essential Question: How did the decisions of the Supreme Court impact civil liberties in the 1960s & 1970s?
by Marcos Cardona-7th period
Miranda v. Arizona Matthew & Noah.
Marisa Hanning Emily Bendik Katie Kraeer
Essential Question: How did the decisions of the Supreme Court impact civil liberties in the 1960s & 1970s? Warm-Up Question: ?
By: Michaela Hull and Elena Butler
The 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments
Presentation transcript:

Miranda v. Arizona

Ernest Arthur Miranda was arrested at his home and taken in custody identified by the complaining witness interrogated for two hours, which resulted in a signed, written confession at trial, the oral and written confessions were presented to the jury found guilty of kidnapping and rape and sentenced to 20-30 years imprisonment on each count on appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona held that his constitutional rights were not violated in obtaining the confession

Supreme Court appeal Argued: Feb. 28, March 1 and 2, 1966 Decided: June 13, 1966 Vote: 5-4 Majority: Chief Justice Warren and Justices Black, Douglas, Brennan, and Fortas

the Court held that statements made during the interrogation by a defendant in custody will be admissible at trial only if he was informed of the right to consult with an attorney, of the right against self- incrimination, and that he voluntarily waived them significant impact on law enforcement in the US making what became known as the Miranda rights part of routine police procedure to ensure that suspects were informed of their rights

The Miranda warning formal warning required to be given by police in the United States to criminal suspects in police custody before they are interrogated purpose to ensure the accused are aware of these rights under the U.S. Constitution, and that they know they can invoke them at any time during the interview The circumstances triggering the Miranda rights are "custody" and "interrogation"

Miranda was not told of his right to counsel. Prior to writing out the confession he had given orally, he was not advised of his right to remain silent, He was not informed that his statements would be used against him

When prosecutors offered written confession as evidence, his court-appointed lawyer objected that the confession was not truly voluntary and should be excluded His objection was overruled

Opinion of the Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren ruled that due to the coercive nature of the interrogation, no confession could be admissible under the Fifth Amendment self- incrimination clause and Sixth Amendment right to an attorney Miranda's conviction was overturned

Warren pointed to the practice of the FBI to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which required notifying a suspect of his right to remain silent the FBI warning included notice of the right to counsel the dissenting justices accused the majority of overreacting to the problem of coercive interrogations they believed that suspects would always demand attorneys and deny the police the ability to gain confessions

The epilogue The case was retried after the original case was thrown out and this time the prosecution called Twila Hoffman, who testified that he had told her of committing the crime Miranda was convicted in 1967 and sentenced to serve 20 to 30 years, but paroled in 1972 When paroled, he returned to his old neighborhood and autographed police officers' "Miranda cards" stabbed to death during an argument in a bar on January 31, 1976 suspect was arrested, but he exercised his right to remain silent and with no evidence against him, he was released

Courts have ruled that any waiver of Miranda rights must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary Many American police departments have pre-printed Miranda waiver forms which a suspect must sign and date a "public safety" exception if the defendant is in possession of information which require protection of the public, he may be questioned without warning and his responses will be admissible in evidence

the Supreme Court’s decision addressed four different cases involving custodial interrogations in none of these cases were they given a full and effective warning of their rights the questioning drew out oral admissions and, in three of them, signed statements that were admitted at trial

The Fifth Amendment protects criminal defendants from having to testify if they may incriminate themselves through the testimony a witness may "plead the Fifth” and not answer if they believe answering the question may be self-incriminatory

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d9uBGW4Kbo

Thank you for your attention!