Tori Roupe and Haley Leavines Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Tori Roupe and Haley Leavines

What is the constitutional issue with this case? In the case Miranda v Arizona, Ernesto Miranda was not informed of his rights prior to the 2-hour police interrogation, violating his fifth amendment right against self- incrimination requiring law enforcement officials to advise a suspect interrogated in custody of his or her rights to remain silent and to obtain an attorney.

Who were the parties involved in the case? Supreme court - chief justice earl warren Police Mirandas Attorney Ernesto miranda

When and where did the case take place? The Miranda v Arizona case took place in 1966 before the United States Supreme Court.

What events lead up to the case before the supreme court. The arrest of Phoenix resident Ernesto Miranda, who was charged with rape, kidnapping, and robbery. Miranda was not informed of his rights prior to the police interrogation. During the two-hour interrogation, Miranda allegedly confessed to committing the crimes, which the police apparently recorded.

What court or courts heard this before going to supreme court? Generally cases are heard in the courts as follows District Court State Appellate State Supreme Court National Supreme Court

What was happening in the world that this case needed to be tried? People started to become hostile towards immigrants and people who were considered deviant in society. Other folks disagreed with this tactic and decided that people who are being arrested should be provided the opportunity to “know” their rights. The civil rights movement was in full effect as well at the time so people's awareness of social injustice was amplified.

What was the supreme court's ruling / decision? After Miranda’s conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court, the State of Arizona retried him. At the second trial, Miranda’s confession was not introduced into evidence. Miranda was once again convicted and sentenced to 20-30 years in prison.

What was the reasoning for the supreme court making their decision? The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision ruled that the prosecution could not introduce 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.

How do you feel about the ruling? why? I believe the ruling wasn’t wrong to put him in jail for 20-30 years. Even though he wasn't told his rights when he was arrested what he did was still illegal.

Dissenting opinion & majority opinion The Supreme Court vote in the dissent? 5-4 justice wrote the opinion for the dissent? Justice harlan the dissenting opinion…majority opinion by Earl Warren. The Fifth Amendment requires that law enforcement officials advise suspects of their right to remain silent and to obtain an attorney during interrogations while in police custody. Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered the opinion of the 5-4 majority the Supreme Court’s ruling / decision? After Miranda’s conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court, the State of Arizona retried him. At the second trial, Miranda’s confession was not introduced into evidence. Miranda was once again convicted and sentenced to 20-30 years in prison.

Immediate and long term effects.. Why is it a “landmark” During these new times, now when people get arrested they are read their “Miranda Rights.”