Miranda V. Arizona Case Brief

870 Words4 Pages

A. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) B. Facts of the case A mexican immigrant man named Ernesto Miranda was charged with the rape and kidnapping of an 18 year old girl in Arizona in 1963. Without informing him of his rights, he was questioned for hours resulting in a signed confession at the end of it. At the trial he was found guilty, largely due to his confession, and sentenced to 20-30 years in prison for each count. The case was later taken to the supreme court where the previous sentence was overturned by a 5-4 vote in favor of Miranda due to the fact that his constitutional right were violated (not being informed of his rights). Besides the defendant, Ernesto Miranda, others involved in the case were people such as: the unidentified female victim, …show more content…

If he would have been convicted without that piece of evidence, his Fifth Amendment right wouldn’t have been violated.Therefore, all of the other evidence they used would have been admissible and this case wouldn’t have to the supreme court at all. One factor that I felt was unimportant was the fact that Miranda was a Mexican immigrant. Due to the severity of his case I believe that no matter what his race or heritage was, the outcome of it would have been the same. One detail that I feel was missing, although not that important, was the identity of the victim. I fully understand that due to many reasons, such as protection of her identity and privacy, they would keep it from the public. I just feel that maybe if we knew her identity we might know the motives behind Miranda’s actions. In the end, her identity doesn’t make that big of an impact on the case therefore, it’s not a loss of extremely vital …show more content…

This allows the suspected criminal to be aware of his rights, which could allow him to avoid things such as a false confessions due to intimidation. The miranda rights have had such a big impact that they’ve now become something so basic and elementary that we now take it for granted and consider it the norm. D. Arguments Miranda’s party argued that his confession wasn’t admissible in court due to the fact that his constitutional rights had been violated. They stated that, he was deprived of having an attorney with him and that he was never aware that he had the right to remain silent, thus it was easier to coerce him into confession. The party of Arizona argued that his rights had never been violated, thus making his confession valid.They stated that, Miranda had signed off on the confession, therefore he was fully aware of his rights and decided to wave them. I believe that the most persuasive point made in this case is the fact that you cannot use information obtained by not informing a person of their constitutional rights in trial because if it weren’t for their lack of awareness they may not have received the intel in the first

Open Document