Overview Of Miranda Ruling

861 Words4 Pages

In March of 1963 a Mexican born immigrant named Ernesto Miranda living in the city of Phoenix, Arizona was chosen in a police lineup by an 18 year old woman who was accusing him of kidnapping and raping her. Miranda was then arrested and questioned by police for several hours before he confessed to the crimes both verbally and in writing. Miranda signed several forms when he confessed to the crimes, including one stating that his confession was completely voluntary and that he understood all his rights. But during the interrogation the police officers did not tell Miranda that he had the right to remain silent, a right granted to him by the Fifth Amendment. Nor did they inform him of his Sixth Amendment right to an attorney. Miranda’s case went to trial in an Arizona state court, with the prosecutor using the confession as evidence against him. Due to his confession he was found guilty and sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison. Because of the unlawful way his interrogation was conducted Miranda's public defender appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, where they chose to uphold the conviction. Next he …show more content…

United States. Westover was arrested by local police in Kansas City as a suspect in two robberies. Westover was also wanted by the FBI for felony charges in the state of California. Westover was interrogated that very night and the next morning by Kansas City police. FBI agents came in that day and continued the interrogation at the police station. After two-and-a-half hours of being interrogated by the FBI agents, Westover signed separate confessions for each of the two robberies in California. These statements were used as evidence against Westover at trial leading up to his conviction of the California robberies and sentencing to 15 years in prison for each of the two robberies. In this case, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in

Open Document