Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 19 views

    Miranda Vs

    Uploaded by

    Adriane9505
    Ernesto Miranda was arrested in 1963 for kidnapping and rape. He confessed to the crime after two hours of interrogation without being informed of his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. Miranda appealed his conviction, arguing that his confession should not have been admissible since he was unaware of his rights. In 1966, the Supreme Court ruled in Miranda v. Arizona that criminal suspects must be informed of their constitutional rights before being questioned by police. This landmark decision established that any statements obtained without informing suspects of their right to remain silent and right to counsel cannot be used against them. The Miranda warning of "You have the right to remain silent" stems from this controversial case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Miranda Vs

    Uploaded by

    Adriane9505
    19 views1 page
    Ernesto Miranda was arrested in 1963 for kidnapping and rape. He confessed to the crime after two hours of interrogation without being informed of his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. Miranda appealed his conviction, arguing that his confession should not have been admissible since he was unaware of his rights. In 1966, the Supreme Court ruled in Miranda v. Arizona that criminal suspects must be informed of their constitutional rights before being questioned by police. This landmark decision established that any statements obtained without informing suspects of their right to remain silent and right to counsel cannot be used against them. The Miranda warning of "You have the right to remain silent" stems from this controversial case.

    Original Description:

    vs

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Ernesto Miranda was arrested in 1963 for kidnapping and rape. He confessed to the crime after two hours of interrogation without being informed of his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. Miranda appealed his conviction, arguing that his confession should not have been admissible since he was unaware of his rights. In 1966, the Supreme Court ruled in Miranda v. Arizona that criminal suspects must be informed of their constitutional rights before being questioned by police. This landmark decision established that any statements obtained without informing suspects of their right to remain silent and right to counsel cannot be used against them. The Miranda warning of "You have the right to remain silent" stems from this controversial case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    19 views1 page

    Miranda Vs

    Uploaded by

    Adriane9505
    Ernesto Miranda was arrested in 1963 for kidnapping and rape. He confessed to the crime after two hours of interrogation without being informed of his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. Miranda appealed his conviction, arguing that his confession should not have been admissible since he was unaware of his rights. In 1966, the Supreme Court ruled in Miranda v. Arizona that criminal suspects must be informed of their constitutional rights before being questioned by police. This landmark decision established that any statements obtained without informing suspects of their right to remain silent and right to counsel cannot be used against them. The Miranda warning of "You have the right to remain silent" stems from this controversial case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Miranda vs.

    Arizona
    You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a
    court of law. Most people have heard these words said at one time or another, but where did
    they come from? In a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court, Chief Justice Earl
    Warren stated that criminals must be informed of their rights, or they are being denied their
    liberties granted by the Constitution. This all stemmed from a very important controversial case
    between Ernesto Miranda and the state of Arizona.
    In 1963 a poor Mexican immigrant by the name of Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping
    and raping a young woman. Prior criminal charges that had been brought against Miranda
    included armed robbery, attempted rape, assault, and burglary. Following his arrest for raping the
    young woman, Miranda confessed to the crime after being interrogated by police for two hours.
    The case went to court and Miranda was found guilty. Although he was found guilty because of
    his confession, Miranda appealed his case on the fact that he did not know his Fifth Amendment
    rights.
    Miranda appealed the case on the basis that he made his confession without knowing his Fifth
    Amendment rights which stated he had a right to a lawyer and to not incriminate himself. The
    case came before the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren in 1966 because it dealt
    with the rights of criminals, and no other cases before dealt with the issues that were being
    addressed. After only a little more than three months of deliberation on the matter, in a five to
    four decision, the Court ruled in favor of Miranda and overturned his conviction. The majority
    opinion, written by Chief Justice Warren, declared that criminals must be told their rights
    guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment, and any evidence obtained from them prior to hearing their
    rights will have been obtained illegally.
    This decision made by the Supreme Court was very controversial at the time of its ruling
    because many people believed that the ruling would allow more criminals to go free because of
    courtroom technicalities. Many other important cases followed the Miranda decision, which still
    remains a controversial topic today. Several cases followed Miranda versus Arizona in which
    defendants made incriminating statements to police without being told their Miranda rights.

    You might also like