MIRANDA V. ARIZONAAshley Nine

March 25, 2010Period 7

Ernesto Miranda

Poor living immigrant from Mexico living in Arizona.

He was charged with rape and kidnapping.

He was arrested when someone identified him in a police lineup.

Sentenced to 20-30 years in prison.

He was not informed in his 5th and 6th amendment.

The Interrogation

Miranda confessed to his crimes that he was charged with.

He was not informed about 2 of his rights 5th amendment: no person shall be compelled in

any criminal case to be a witness against himself.

6th amendment: in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to have the assistance of counsel for his defense

Arizona supreme court denied his appeal.

Arguments

MIRANDA ARIZONA

Violated his rights to remain silent and to legal counsel

Arizona ignored 2 laws in prosecuting Miranda.

Conviction was faulty Deserved a new trial

Miranda was no stranger to police

He signed the confession

The prosecution was proper

The court should uphold his conviction

Miranda Warning

It was for police investigators to read the suspects their rights.

States that you have the right to remain silent.

They can only ask for specific information.

Miranda warning used in the Miranda v. Arizona case

“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense.”

After the release

• ●Miranda was convicted in 1967, an

• served to 20-30 years in jail• ●Shortly after he got out, he

retired. • ●After release, he went back to

his old neighborhood●Made a living by autographing police officers

“Miranda Cards”●January 1976, he was stabbed to death during

an argument in a bar.