Miranda v. Arizona 1966

On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in his house and brought to the police station where he was questioned by police officers in connection with a kidnapping and rape. After two hours of interrogation, the police obtained a written confession from Miranda. The written confession was admitted into evidence at trial despite the objection of the defense attorney and the fact that the police officers admitted that they had not advised Miranda of his right to have an attorney present during the interrogation. The jury found Miranda guilty. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona affirmed and held that Miranda’s constitutional rights were not violated because he did not specifically request counsel.

In Brief, the defendants argued that Miranda was not aware he had the right to an attorney when he gave his written confession. Miranda was never told he had the right to remain silent.

The percitutors said Mr. Miranda admitted to his crimes at his own will. He always had the right to an attorney but never asked for one.

Of the year 1996, Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered the 5-4 majority opinion. The Supreme Court said the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination did In fact protect Mr. Miranda. Therefore, prosecution may not use statements arising from a custodial interrogation of a suspect unless certain procedural safeguards were in place. Such safeguards include proof that the suspect was aware of his right to be silent, that any statement he makes may be used against him, that he has the right to have an attorney present, that he has the right to have an attorney appointed to him, that he may waive these rights if he does so voluntarily, and that if at any points he requests an attorney there will be no further questioning until the attorney arrives. The Court held that, in each of the cases, the interrogation techniques used did not technically fall into the category of coercive, but they failed to ensure that the defendant’s decision to speak with the police was entirely the product of his own free will.

Work Cited

Miranda v. Arizona." {{meta.siteName}}. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Mar. 2017.

Credits:

Created with images by Alexas_Fotos - "police crime scene blue light" • Alexas_Fotos - "taxes tax evasion police" • Alexas_Fotos - "taxes tax evasion police" • fotshot - "saying font red"

Made with Adobe Slate

Make your words and images move.

Get Slate

Report Abuse

If you feel that this video content violates the Adobe Terms of Use, you may report this content by filling out this quick form.

To report a Copyright Violation, please follow Section 17 in the Terms of Use.