By: Megan Devin
Political Science
December 4, 2014
• Ernest Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and raping an 18
year old girl.
• He later admitted to doing the crime during a 2 hour interview
with police officers.
• He signed a statement that would eventually be used against
him in court to find him guilty.
• The police never informed him of his rights because they thought
that he was already familiar with them since it was not his first
arrest.
• He appealed his court to the Arizona Supreme Court and later
to the Supreme Court.
• Vignera was picked up by New York police in connection with
the robbery of a dress shop.
• He orally admitted to doing the robbery and was placed under
formal arrest.
• He was then transferred to a different facility, where he was
questioned by an assistant district attorney in the presence of a
hearing reporter who transcribed the questions and answers.
• At trial, the oral confession and the transcript were presented to
the jury.
• Vignera was found guilty of first degree robbery and
sentenced to 30-60 years imprisonment.
• Westover was arrested by local police in Kansas City as a suspect in
two Kansas City robberies and taken to a local police station.
• Westover was interrogated the night of the arrest and the next
morning by local police.
• Then, FBI agents continued the interrogation at the station. After twoand-a-half hours of interrogation by the FBI, Westover signed
separate confessions, which had been prepared by one of the agents
during the interrogation, to each of the two robberies in California.
• These statements were introduced at trial. Westover was convicted of
the California robberies and sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment on
each count.
• In the course of investigating a series of purse-snatch robberies
in which one of the victims died of injuries inflicted by her
assailant, Stewart was identified as the endorser of checks
stolen in one of the robberies.
• Police arrested Stewart, his wife, and three other people who
were visiting him.
• Stewart was placed in a cell, and, over the next five days, was
interrogated on nine different occasions. During the ninth
interrogation session, Stewart stated that he had robbed the
deceased, but had not meant to hurt her.
• He was later convicted of robbery and first-degree murder
with that statement.
• The issue of law in question was whether or not a statement
from the accused could be submitted and used in court against
them without them being aware of their:
• 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination and their
• 6th Amendment right to an attorney before the interrogation started.
• Supreme Court argued the case from February 28-March 1,
1966
• On June 13, 1966, they decided on a final verdict
• In a final vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court favored with Miranda
instead of the state of Arizona
• Written by Chief Justice Earl Warren
• Warren explained that the prosecution could not use “Miranda's
confession as evidence in a criminal trial because the police had
failed to first inform Miranda of his right to an attorney and
against self-incrimination.”
• Established ‘Miranda Rights’
• Written by Justices Harlan, Stewart, and White
• The main point of the dissenting opinion was that they thought
the new laws would take away all pressures and “discourage
any confession at all.”
• If a person is not read their Miranda Rights, any statement they
make will not hold up in court.
• Miranda Rights:
• 1. A person has the right to remain silent.
• 2. Anything they say may be used against them in court.
• 3. They have the right to an attorney, either retained by them or
appointed by the court.
• 4. They may waive these rights, but they still have the right to ask for an
attorney any time during the interrogation.
Ernest Miranda
Miranda, on the far left,
in a police line up
Miranda
(right) with
attorney (left)
Gribben, Mark. “Miranda vs. Arizona: The Crime that Changed
American Justice,” Crime Library; available from
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/not_guilty/m
iranda/10.html; Internet; accessed 20 November 2014.
McBride, Alex. “Miranda v. Arizona (1966),” PBS.org; available
from
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_mir
anda.html; Internet; accessed 20 November 2014.
"Miranda v. Arizona," LII / Legal Information Institute (Cornell
University Law School); available from
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/384/436;
Internet; accessed 20 November 2014.
“Miranda v. Arizona Case Brief,” 4 Law School; available from
http://www.4lawschool.com/criminal/miranda.htm; Internet;
accessed 20 November 2014.
“Summary of the Decision,” Street Law, Inc.; available from
http://www.streetlaw.org/en/Page/471/Summary_of_the_D
ecision; Internet; accessed 20 November 2014.
“Facts and Case Summary,” United States Courts; available from
http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/getinvolved/constitution-activities/fifth-amendment/mirandacriminal-defense/facts-case-summary.aspx; Internet; accessed
01 December 2014.
• http://archive.azcentral.com/prog/image.php?i=620857.jpg
• http://s1.hubimg.com/u/4450958_f260.jpg
• http://aclu.procon.org/images/site/timeline/300x350/ernesto
-miranda-and-john-flynn-1967-1.jpg