Mrs. Behm American Government Name:_______________________ Miranda v. Arizona (1966) The Bill of Rights states that every citizen accused of a crime has the right to the help of a lawyer. It also states that no one accused of a crime can be forced to give testimony against himself. How exactly should these rights be applied in actual cases? At what point in the investigation or trial does a person get a lawyer? Is a confession in a police station considered to be testifying against oneself? Is it your responsibility to know your rights or do the police have to explain them to you? These were the questions put forth in the case Miranda v. Arizona, heard by the Supreme Court in 1966. Ernesto Miranda was arrested and taken to the police station for questioning. He was suspected of raping an 18-year old girl. Miranda never asked to have his lawyer present (he may not even have known he was entitled to one). He also did not refuse to answer any of the police's questions. In the course of the police's questioning, Miranda admitted his guilt. At his trial in an Arizona state court, he was found guilty based on his confession. Miranda appealed this decision and the case was eventually heard by the Supreme Court. Miranda claimed that since he did not know he was entitled to a lawyer and that he did not have to answer any questions, his Constitutional rights had been violated. He claimed it was the police's responsibility to tell him about these rights. The police claimed that they did not prevent him from getting a lawyer and they did not force him to answer any questions, so they did not violate Miranda's rights. Directions: Take a moment to answer the following questions. Use the back if you need more space. 1. What court had original jurisdiction in this case? 2. List, in order, the courts that this case probably went through on its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. 3. What type of jurisdiction was the Supreme Court using when it heard this case? 4. Briefly summarize the argument from Miranda’s side (how were his Constitutional rights violated?) 5. Now briefly summarize the argument from the opposite side (how can it be said that what the police did was indeed Constitutional). 6. Which side in this case do you think was right? Why 7. What was the majority opinion in this case? (Use the Internet to find out.)