Miranda vs Arizona 1966
Vivek Barbhaiya and John Coriasco
Parties and Their Roles
• In this cases there were two parties.
• One party was Chief Justice Earl Warren along
with the police.
• The second part was Ernesto Miranda, who was
accused of rape, kidnapping, and robbery.
Facts About the Case
• The Supreme Court’s decision
in Miranda v. Arizona addressed
four different cases.
• In all cases, police officers,
detectives, or a prosecuting
attorney in a room questioned the
defendant.
• Basically, the defendant was
never given a full and effective
warning of his rights at the prior
to the interrogation process in any
of the cases.
• In three of the cases, the
defendant did admit to his crimes.
What are Miranda Rights?
• Before any sort of interrogation, the police are required to give the
“Miranda Warning” to the one being interrogated.
• “You have the right to remain silent when questioned.
• Anything you say or do may be used against you in a court of law. (Modern
readings have can and will in place of may)
• You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and
to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future.
• If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any
questioning, if you wish.
• If you decide to answer any questions now, without an attorney present,
you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to
an attorney.
• Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you,
are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?
Court of Jurisdiction
• The Supreme Court of Arizona was the Court
of Jurisdiction.
Case Appealed
• This case was appealed.
• It was appealed because
the defendant’s claim
was the Miranda’s
constitutional rights
were violating while
obtaining the confession
via tape recording.
Final Ruling
• Initially, Miranda was convicted due to the
evidence they police had from the investigation.
• Later, his conviction was reversed due to his
appeal.
• After the appeal, Miranda was later retried and
convicted without the admission of his
confession.
Reasoning behind the ruling
• Originally, the Miranda vs.
Arizona case was decided that
Miranda’s constitutional rights
were not violated while
obtaining the confession.
• On appeal, the Supreme Court
of Arizona still held that
Miranda’s constitutional rights
were not violated in obtaining
the confession.
Reasoning Behind Ruling
• The Federal Supreme Court
held that “there can be no
doubt that the Fifth
Amendment privilege is
available outside of criminal
court proceedings and
serves to protect persons in
all settings in which their
freedom of action is
curtailed in any significant
way from being compelled
to incriminate themselves.”
Reasoning behind the ruling
• Essentially, the Supreme Court reversed the
judgment of the Supreme Court of Arizona in
Miranda and also reversed the judgment of 2 of
the other cases connected to this case because
they went against the right to not self
incriminate.
• The Supreme Court also affirmed the judgment of
the Supreme Court of California in California vs.
Stewart after it ruled that Stewart should have
been advised of his right to remain silent and his
right to counsel.
Why is it considered to be a landmark
case?
• This case is considered to be a
landmark because it has set the
foundation for all future arrests,
interrogations, and
incriminations. When someone is
being arrested, it is now required
for a police officer to read them
their “Miranda Right.”
• If the police officers fail to
provide these people with their
Fifth Amendment rights, it
revokes all future evidence and
information provided from that
person. This case has set the
standards for the legal process
during an arrest.
Has this case impacted/changed any
other case?
•
•
•
The obvious 3 cases that the Miranda v.
Arizona that were impacted were Vignera
v. New York, Westover v. United States,
and California v. Stewart which all were in
relation to the ultimate decision of the
Miranda v. Arizona.
However, another case that was a result
of the Miranda v. Arizona case was the
Berghuis v. Thompkins case on June 1,
2010
This case resulted in the decision that
criminal suspects who are aware of their
right to silence and to an attorney, but
choose not to "unambiguously" invoke
them, may find any subsequent voluntary
statements treated as an implied waiver
of their rights, and which may be used in
evidence.