Miranda v. ArizonaMiranda v. Arizona19661966

Background InformationBackground Information

- Phoenix, Arizona 1966- Phoenix, Arizona 1966- Ernesto Miranda arrested for kidnapping and Ernesto Miranda arrested for kidnapping and

raperape- Interrogated for 2 hrs and signed confessionInterrogated for 2 hrs and signed confession- Sentenced to 20-30 years in prisonSentenced to 20-30 years in prison

* Appealed case to the Supreme Court* Appealed case to the Supreme Court

Story DetailsStory Details

- In the early hours of March 3, 1963, an 18-year-old Phoenix, Arizona, - In the early hours of March 3, 1963, an 18-year-old Phoenix, Arizona, movie theater attendant was accosted by a stranger while on her way movie theater attendant was accosted by a stranger while on her way home from work. He dragged her into his car, drove out to the desert, and home from work. He dragged her into his car, drove out to the desert, and raped her. Afterwards he dropped the girl off near her home. The story raped her. Afterwards he dropped the girl off near her home. The story she told police, often vague and contradictory, described her attacker as a she told police, often vague and contradictory, described her attacker as a bespectacled Mexican, late 20s, who was driving an early fifties car, bespectacled Mexican, late 20s, who was driving an early fifties car, either a Ford or Chevrolet.either a Ford or Chevrolet.

- By chance, one week later, the girl and her brother-in-law saw what she By chance, one week later, the girl and her brother-in-law saw what she believed was the car, a 1953 Packard, license plate DFL-312. Records believed was the car, a 1953 Packard, license plate DFL-312. Records showed that this plate was actually registered to a late model Oldsmobile, showed that this plate was actually registered to a late model Oldsmobile, but DFL-317 was a Packard, registered to a Twila N. Hoffman; and her but DFL-317 was a Packard, registered to a Twila N. Hoffman; and her boyfriend, Ernesto Miranda, 23, fit the attacker's description almost boyfriend, Ernesto Miranda, 23, fit the attacker's description almost exactly.exactly.

http://law.jrank.org/pages/3105/Ernesto-Miranda-Trials-1963-1967.html

Amendment ChallengedAmendment Challenged

55thth Amendment Amendment – protection from self incrimination – protection from self incrimination

* What is an appropriate level of interrogation when * What is an appropriate level of interrogation when investigating a crime and witness?investigating a crime and witness?

* What is the proper procedure that must be taken when * What is the proper procedure that must be taken when performing an interrogation?performing an interrogation?

RulingRuling5 to 4 Supreme Court decision!5 to 4 Supreme Court decision!* What happens to a person when they are taken into custody?* What happens to a person when they are taken into custody?

- Miranda wasMiranda was NOT “warned” or NOT “warned” or read his rights before read his rights before he washe was interrogated interrogated by the policeby the police- - Case wasCase was overturned in Miranda’s overturned in Miranda’s favor!favor!

No statement from a suspect may No statement from a suspect may be used unless interrogation be used unless interrogation demonstrates the use of proper demonstrates the use of proper procedures to protect against selfprocedures to protect against self incriminationincrimination

The confession was thrown out andThe confession was thrown out andhis case was heard without confessionhis case was heard without confessionalthough he was still found guiltyalthough he was still found guilty

SignificanceSignificance

* “Miranda Rights” = regular practice of police * “Miranda Rights” = regular practice of police arrestsarrests

It cannot be assumed that a person is aware of It cannot be assumed that a person is aware of what their rights are when they are arrested of what their rights are when they are arrested of a crimea crime

Miranda’s case violated…Miranda’s case violated…* DUE PROCESS OF LAW!!* DUE PROCESS OF LAW!!