Miranda V. Arizona
By: Elise Kloppenburg
Facts of the Case
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
-
Phoenix, Arizona 1963
Ernesto Miranda, 23 years old
Arrested in his home
Taken to the police station
Identified by the victim
Taken into an interrogation room
** Miranda was never told of his rights to counsel prior to
questioning **
The law enforcement quickly obtained a signed confession
from Miranda.
In the confession is clearly stated: Miranda was fully aware of
his rights and he had waived those rights
Preliminary Hearing: again did not have counsel
Trial: He DID have a lawyer
It was to late at that point
Lawyer attempted to get the signed confession thrown out
He was convicted and sent to jail for 20 years
Kidnap & rape
Why Was This Case Brought to the
Supreme Court?
MIRANDA’S SIDE
• Miranda’s 5th & 6th amendment rights were ignored
• Escobedo Right: evidence obtained from an illegally obtained confession is
inadmissible in court
• (these rules were ignored)
• Gideon Rule: Felony defendants have a right to an attorney
• The confession was illegally obtained and the conviction was not fair… he
deserved a brand new trial
ARIZONA’S SIDE
• Miranda had been in trouble with law before
• He was aware of the procedure
• Confession signed
• Conviction based upon Arizona law
• Supreme court should not become “involved” in Arizona police business
• What Freedom or Right Was at Issue?
- Miranda’s right to remain silent & his right to a
legal counsel
• How & Why did the Supreme Court Decide
the Case as it Did?
- Arizona Supreme Court denied his appeal
and kept the conviction
- Because Miranda signed the confession
stating he was aware of his rights
- Court voted 5-4 in favor
• How did the Case Change how we
Understand or Interpret the
Constitution/Amendments?
- Miranda v Arizona spelled out the rights of the
accused and the responsibilities of the
police. Today the Miranda Right are read upon
arrest.
- “You have the right to remain silent. Anything
you say can and will be used against you in a
court of law. You have a right to an attorney.
If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be
appointed for you.”