Miranda Vs Arizona Case Study

Miranda vs. Arizona, “384 U.S. 436, 10 Ohio Misc. 9, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694” (Cornell University Law School), was a case that considered the rights of the defendants in criminal cases in regards to the power of the government. Ernesto Miranda, a mentally retarded Arizonian, was convicted for kidnap and rape; he got a 20-30 year prison sentence for each count. Ernesto was brought in and identified by a complaining witness. He was interrogated for two hours before he signed a written confession. According to the Arizona Supreme Court none of his rights were violated, but after his prison sentence he claimed that the police violated his 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments. When he took this to court their decision was 5-4, this became identified as the Miranda Warning. The

Anything you say or do can and will be held against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?”(Riley 82). According to History,” A statement obtained without compliance with these rules is inadmissible as is the fact that a defendant has chosen to exercise the right to remain silent ‘in the face of accusation.’” (History). This case originated in Arizona, argued on February 28, 1966 and decided on June 13, 1966. The “majority opinion was written by Chief Justice Warren and joined by Justices Black, Douglas, Brennan and Fortas” (United States Courts). The dissenting opinion were “Justice Harlan and joined by Justices Stewart and White” (United States Court). According to Time Magazine, “without these Miranda warnings, the court deemed, prosecutors could not use statements made by defendants under interrogation” (TIME). The following opinion was written by Justice Harlan, joined by Justices Stewart and White, “But the basic flaws in the Court's justification seem to me readily apparent now once all sides of the problem are