Miranda

=Miranda vs. Arizona (1966) - Andy Moshos = = = = Background: Ernesto Miranda, a resident of Phoenix Arizona, was arrested in 1963 and charged with rape, kidnapping, and robbery. The police failed to inform Miranda of his rights before beginning a two hour recorded interrogation session during which Miranda confessed to committing the crimes. The rights that Miranda was not informed of were the right to an attorney and the right against self incrimination. The prosecution’s argument in trial was solely based on his confession, and Miranda was convicted and sentenced to 20-30 years in prison. He then appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court because he was never informed of his constitutional right against self incrimination nor was he informed of his constitutional right to counsel with an attorney. The Arizona Supreme Court agreed with the original decision, which prompted Miranda to appeal to the US Supreme Court. = = = = Question: Does police interrogation of a suspect without previously informing the suspect of his or her right to counsel and against self incrimination violate the 5th and 6th Amendments of the United States Constitution? = = = =The Decision: The Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren ruled that the prosecution could not use the confession as evidence in the trial because the police did not first inform Miranda of his Constitutional (5th and 6th Amendments) rights to counsel and against self incrimination in a 5-4 decision. This ruling created the “Miranda Rule,” which required police officers telling every defendant at the time of arrest that he or she has the right to remain silent, that anything they say will be used against them, and that they have the right to an attorney for counsel and interrogations. =



Miranda vs. Arizona (1966) Sam Odak

// Miranda v. Arizona, // (1966) dealt with the need for individuals in police custody to understand their constitutional rights before being questioned by police. The specific protections addressed are the Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate oneself, and the Sixth Amendment right to legal counsel. In the named case, Ernesto Arturo Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and sexual assault in March 1963. He was taken to the police station, where he was identified by the victim. Ernesto was than interrogated for hours until the police were finally able to gain a confession out of him. Ernesto was than forced to sign a paper stating he knew his legal rights when he had no knowledge that he could counsel with an attorney. His statement was used in his trail and was convicted and sent to prison to serve a 20-30 year sentence. Miranda's attorney than appealed to the state supreme court. Miranda's lawyer stated Miranda had not been fully informed of his rights when he was arrested and his confession should be thrown out. The state defended this by saying, Miranda had been in trouble with the law numerous times before and knew his rights. The state supreme court sided with the state. Miranda's attorney than appealed to the supreme court.

If you were on the Arizona Supreme Court, would you have sided with the states defense?

The Supreme Court ruled that Miranda had not been well notified of his 5th and 6th constitutional right and his confession could not be used as evidence in his trial. The ruling, under Chief Justice Earl Warren, narrowly passed by a 5-4 vote. The ruling created the process of "Mirandizing" someone who's been arrested. This new rule requires that officers notify any and all suspects at the time of their arrest unless they expressly waive it.