Miranda v.
Arizona
Background
●
●
●
●
●
On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in his home on
charges of kidnap and rape.
Miranda was interrogated for two hours until the police obtained a
written confession.
Police never informed Miranda of his constitutional rights nor his right
to counsel.
Jury found Miranda guilty and sentenced to 20-30 years in prison, on
each count.
On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona concluded that Miranda’s
trial and sentence was constitutional because he did not ask for an
attorney.
You Decide
Miranda was arrested in his home and during that arrest he was not read
his rights. Once he arrived at the police station, he placed in a line-up and
identified by the prosecutrix in both the charges he was arrested upon and
a robbery. Miranda was then put into an interrogation room with no counsel
and was questioned. After two hours of being cut off from the outside
world, Miranda signed a confession. The confession was then used in trial
as evidenced but was argued against by the defense attorney because
Miranda was not informed of his constitutional rights, to remain silent or
have an attorney present.
Was this constitutional?
The Questions
Was Miranda in the wrong for not asking for his rights to
be read?
Do you think during interrogation that the police officers
should have asked if Miranda had been informed of his
rights?
Was the Supreme Court of Arizona’s ruling of the case
unconstitutional?
The case of Miranda v Arizona was
argued on March 1st and 2nd of 1966.
With a 5 to 4 majority, the Supreme
Court decided on June 13th of 1966.
The initial case of Miranda v Arizona
was overturned by the Supreme Court
citizens being placed under arrest
must be read their constitutional rights.
The Decision
Significance
The case proves significance because of it’s great effect today. Miranda Rights
are read or at least should be read to every convicted felon, so that their
constitutional rights are known and can be used to their advantage if need be.
This case did nothing exponential for the government other than enforcing
police officers and federal bureaus to recite the rights at the time of an arrest.
This case enforced the 6th amendment, allowing the convicted to use the
amendment knowingly. Cases such as Vignera v. New York, Westover v. United
States, California v. Stewart, were all cases where the defendant was not given
their rights.
●
●
●
●
●
After the Supreme Court's decision, Miranda’s case was dropped and
the re-opened a year later.
Miranda was convicted and sentenced to 20-30 years in prison and was
paroled in 1972
Miranda autographed police officers, Miranda Cards
Miranda was stabbed and killed on January 31st, 1976 by a suspect that
excised his Miranda Rights.
The suspect was released without being charged
Recap
●
Who, what, when, and where did this case take place?
●
What was the original ruling?
●
What was the majority ruling?
●
What significance does this case have on today’s law enforcement?
●
What was ironic about this case?
●
What’s important about today?
Works Cited
●
http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-su
mmary-miranda-v-arizona
●
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1965/759
●
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona