Miranda V. Arizona

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 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
• 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
- Miranda v Arizona spelled out the rights of the
accused and the responsibilities of the
police. Today the Miranda Right are read upon
- “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.”