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

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

CH 14 Citizenship and Equal Justice

Forensic Science FORENSIC SCIENCE The History When Did Forensics First Get Started?

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 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.

Daniel Moody PD. 3 3/25/10 Miranda VS. Arizona 1966.

Cases and Terms – Chapter 8 – Rights of the Accused Module 8 Amendments 4 -7.

The Criminal Amendments: Rights of the Accused Trends Over Time

Landmark Supreme Court Cases: Mr. Blough Academic Civics.

The Courts and the Constitution

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.

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.

Copyright © 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Chapter 4 Interrogation.

Landmark Supreme Court Cases: Mr. Blough Academic Civics.

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.

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.

Supreme Court Cases Criminal Rights 1960’s. Gideon vs. Wainwright 1963 state courts are required under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

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!”

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

Criminal Trial Rights Tanner Powell and Eric Tate.

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.

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.

By Colby Beighey Period 9. About Ernesto Miranda  Born on March 9, 1941  Grew up in Mesa, Arizona  His mother died  His father remarried  Did not.

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.

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

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.

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.

Entry Into the System Arrests and Miranda.

Miranda v. Arizona.

Landmark Cases Mapp v. Ohio Tinker v. Des Moines Miranda v. Arizona

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

Miranda v. Arizona (1966).

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) U.S. Supreme Court Case Study Project

LANDMARK SUPREME COURT CASES:

Miranda v. Arizona 1966.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) The Warren Court.

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court formed the basis for the exercise of judicial.

Landmark Supreme Court Cases

Fifth and Sixth Amendments

Case Studies Chapter 1.

by Marcos Cardona-7th period

Miranda v. Arizona Matthew & Noah.

Miranda vs. Arizona.

Presentation transcript:

Miranda v. Arizona

Ernesto Miranda 1966 Charged & convicted of kidnapping, rape, and armed robbery charges second trial, with his confession excluded from evidence, he was again convicted confession under police interrogation was set aside in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case (Miranda v. Arizona) criminal suspects must be informed of their right against self-incrimination and their right to consult with an attorney before being questioned by police. This warning is known as a Miranda warning He appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, claiming that the police had unconstitutionally obtained his confession.