Miranda v. Arizona 1966. Background Information - Phoenix, Arizona 1966 -Ernesto Miranda arrested for kidnapping and rape -Interrogated for 2 hrs and.

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

Miranda Warning Law Enforcement I.
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
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 vs. Arizona Mrs. Pappafotopoulos Criminology & Law.
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.
Daniel Moody PD. 3 3/25/10 Miranda VS. Arizona 1966.
Our Criminal Justice System
Objective 29L Analyze he rights of the accused as set forth in the 4 th,5 th,6 th,8 th, and 14 th Amendments, including but no limited to such cases as.
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.
Reem K, Madeline R, Miranda G, Emily K, & Britney F Government 4 th Hour Mr. Baker.
Arrests and Miranda. 2 Copyright and Terms of Service Copyright © Texas Education Agency, These materials are copyrighted © and trademarked ™ as.
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.
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
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.
 Online Miranda quiz Online Miranda quiz. The constitutional implications of custodial interrogation.
The Investigation Phase. An arrest takes place when a person is suspected of crime and taken into custody.
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.
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.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS: THE INVESTIGATION Chapter 12.
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,
Know Your Rights Santa Teresa High School Intro to LPSCS.
Entry Into the System Arrests and Miranda.
Miranda v. Arizona.
Marisa Hanning Emily Bendik Katie Kraeer
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.
Landmark Cases Mapp v. Ohio Tinker v. Des Moines Miranda v. Arizona
Defining the meaning of the terms in the warning
Landmark Supreme Court Cases
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
Miranda v. Arizona (1966).
Important Court Cases of the 20th Century
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) U.S. Supreme Court Case Study Project
Entry Into the System Arrests and Miranda.
Miranda v. Arizona 1966.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) The Warren Court.
Landmark Supreme Court Cases
Miranda v. Arizona 5th Amendment
Miranda Rights You have the right to remain silent…
by Marcos Cardona-7th period
Rights of the Accused Part 1
Miranda v. Arizona Matthew & Noah.
Miranda vs. Arizona.
Marisa Hanning Emily Bendik Katie Kraeer
By: Michaela Hull and Elena Butler
The 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments
Presentation transcript:

Miranda v. Arizona 1966

Background Information - Phoenix, Arizona Ernesto Miranda arrested for kidnapping and rape -Interrogated for 2 hrs and signed confession -Sentenced to years in prison * Appealed case to the Supreme Court

Story Details - In the early hours of March 3, 1963, an 18-year-old Phoenix, Arizona, movie theater attendant was accosted by a stranger while on her way home from work. He dragged her into his car, drove out to the desert, and raped her. Afterwards he dropped the girl off near her home. The story she told police, often vague and contradictory, described her attacker as a bespectacled Mexican, late 20s, who was driving an early fifties car, either a Ford or Chevrolet. -By chance, one week later, the girl and her brother-in-law saw what she believed was the car, a 1953 Packard, license plate DFL-312. Records showed that this plate was actually registered to a late model Oldsmobile, but DFL-317 was a Packard, registered to a Twila N. Hoffman; and her boyfriend, Ernesto Miranda, 23, fit the attacker's description almost exactly.

Amendment Challenged 5 th Amendment – protection from self incrimination * What is an appropriate level of interrogation when investigating a crime and witness? * What is the proper procedure that must be taken when performing an interrogation?

Ruling 5 to 4 Supreme Court decision! * What happens to a person when they are taken into custody? -Miranda was NOT “warned” or read his rights before he was interrogated by the police - Case was overturned in Miranda’s favor! No statement from a suspect may be used unless interrogation demonstrates the use of proper procedures to protect against self incrimination incrimination The confession was thrown out and his case was heard without confession although he was still found guilty

Significance * “Miranda Rights” = regular practice of police arrests It cannot be assumed that a person is aware of what their rights are when they are arrested of a crime Miranda’s case violated… * DUE PROCESS OF LAW!!