ipl-logo

Miranda Vs Arizona Case Study

879 Words4 Pages

Miranda vs. Arizona (1966)
Miranda v. State of Arizona; Westover v. United States; Vignera v. State of New York; State of California v. Stewart 384 U.S. 436 86 S. Ct. 1602; 16 L. Ed. 2d 694; 1966 U.S. LEXIS 2817; 10 A.L.R.3d 974. This case involves the fifth and sixth amendments of the US constitution, as well as the grand jury indictment clause of the fourteenth amendment. The Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona addressed four different cases involving custodial interrogations. In each of these cases, the defendant was questioned by police officers, detectives, or a prosecuting attorney in a room in which he was cut off from the outside world. In none of these cases was the defendant given a full and effective warning of his …show more content…

Ernesto Miranda, a Mexican immigrant living in Phoenix, Arizona was identified by a woman who claimed he kidnapped and raped her. Miranda was then arrested and questioned by the police for two hours before confessing to the crime, both orally and written. During the interrogation, police did not tell Miranda about his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination or his Sixth Amendment right to an attorney. The case went to trial in an Arizona state court and the prosecutor used the confession as evidence against Miranda, who was convicted and sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison. Miranda's attorney appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, which upheld the conviction. Then he appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which agreed to hear it along with four similar cases. In taking the case, the Court had to determine the role police have in protecting the rights of the accused guaranteed …show more content…

The Court held that “there can be no doubt that the Fifth Amendment privilege is available outside of criminal court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way from being compelled to incriminate themselves.” Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the majority opinion ruling that due to the coercive nature of the custodial interrogation by police (Warren cited several police training manuals which had not been provided in the arguments), no confession could be admissible under the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination clause and Sixth Amendment right to an attorney unless a suspect had been made aware of his rights and the suspect had then waived them: “The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Arizona in Miranda, reversed the judgment of the New York Court of Appeals in Vignera, reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Westover, and affirmed the judgment of the Supreme Court of California in

Open Document