1 / 8

Miranda V. Arizona

Miranda V. Arizona. Origins of Case. March 1963, Ernesto Miranda, charged with rape, kidnapping, and robbery in Arizona was interrogated/questioned by officers and signed the confession in an isolated room.

johana
Télécharger la présentation

Miranda V. Arizona

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Miranda V. Arizona

  2. Origins of Case March 1963, Ernesto Miranda, charged with rape, kidnapping, and robbery in Arizona was interrogated/questioned by officers and signed the confession in an isolated room. But “a full and effective warning” of his rights to remain silenced and to ask for counselling was not given. Sentenced 20-30 years at trial The supreme court of Arizona SCOTUS

  3. Amendments Applied The Fifth and Sixth Amendments: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury… nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself…” “The accused shall enjoy the right… to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”

  4. Constitutional Question “Does the police’s practice of interrogating individuals without notifying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination violate the Fifth and Sixth Amendment?” (Y) Alvin Moore, Miranda’s court-appointed lawyer vs. (N) Local jury and the supreme court of Arizona

  5. Supreme Court Result On June 13, 1966 Supreme Court Decision: 5-4 (5 for Miranda, 4 against) The evidence of Miranda’s confession was invalid. Arizona’s decision was overturned. Chief Justice Earl Warren: “Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed.”

  6. Dissenting Opinion Justice Harlan,Stewart and White “They assured a conviction for a brutal and unsettling crime, for which the police had and quite possibly could obtain little evidence other than the victim's identifications, evidence which is frequently unreliable. There was, in sum, a legitimate purpose, no perceptible unfairness, and certainly little risk of injustice in the interrogation. Yet the resulting confessions, and the responsible course of police practice they represent, are to be sacrificed to the Court's own finespun conception of fairness which I seriously doubt is shared by many thinking citizens in this country. . . .”

  7. Miranda Rights/Miranda Warning A statement that the police have to make (according to the Constitution) when they are going to interrogating criminals. “You have the right to remain silent. If you give up the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney and to have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to you at no cost. During any questioning, you may decide at any time to exercise these rights, not answer any questions or make any statements. Do you understand these rights as I have read them to you?” 6 rules/requirements of Miranda Warning

  8. Works consulted http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_miranda.html https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/384/436 MIRANDA v. ARIZONA. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 16 September 2015. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_759>. http://www.streetlaw.org/en/Page/469/Key_Excerpts_from_the_Dissenting_Opinion

More Related