*Miranda+v.+Arizona

1. Year: 1966 1/1

2. Summary: Ernesto Miranda was arrested on March 13, 1963 in CAP phoenix Arizona, on charges of kidnapping and rape. Police took him in for interrogation, and a couple hours later they had a written confession from Miranda. Included in the confession was a disclaimer (also signed by Miranda) saying that he had a full understanding of his legal rights, and that anything he said may be used against him. The problem is that Miranda was not told of his right to counsel (right to a lawyer) when taken into interrogation. When he had his preliminary hearing COMMA he once again did not have counsel. When he finally had counsel it was at his trial. His lawyer argued that his written confession should be THROWN OUT because he was not made aware of his right to counsel. The court voted 5-4 and he was sentenced 20 years in prison. Miranda’s argument was that Arizona violated the 5th amendment (right to remain silent), and the 6th amendment (right to an attorney), resulting in unjust evidence. The court argued that Miranda was familiar with the procedures and he demonstrated this fact when he negotiated with the police. They also said that Miranda signed the confession willingly, and the conviction was just. GOOD 5/5

3. Constitutional/Legal Issue: The Supreme Court's question asked whether police officers were violating people's right to the 5th amendment by not telling them that anything they say could be used against them. It was a self-incrimination, right to trial, and criminal issue. 5/5

4. Decision or Holding: The Supreme Court had 5 votes for Miranda, and 4 votes against. The official ruling of the court was that police officers had to tell the accused: "You are under arrest for __. You have 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. If you cannot afford one, one will be provided for you, etc." Basically, if you are arrested, the police have to tell you what your rights are, no matter how much they want you to confess without a lawyer present, and then get you convicted by using that confession. 5/5

5. Significance: The court WHICH COURT? violated the Constitutions 5th and 6th amendment, because of this it is now stressed that the police have to tell the accused that they have the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. This affects the people that will follow because the police will have to inform the accused of their rights so that in the court the case can not be overturned. COMMON PRACTICE - THINK OF HOW MANY PEOPLE KNOW WHAT MIRANDA RIGHTS ARE BECAUSE OF TV/MOVIES 6. Picture/Illustration:



WHAT IS THE PICTURE? LABEL! 1/2

7. Bibliography: //-﻿The Oyez Project, Miranda v. Arizona  ,//  //384 U.S. 436// (1966)  Retrieved November 17, 2009 from [] //-Earl Warren// [online image]. Retrieved November 17, 2009 from [] -(n.d.). //Miranda v. arizona (1966)//. Retrieved from []

NICE JOB - SEE COMMENTS ABOVE 24/25 = 96% (A)