The Sixth Amendment Of Miranda Vs. Arizona

890 Words4 Pages
Miranda Vs. Arizona On March 2, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested from his home in Phoenix, Arizona in regards to a rape and kidnapping. After a two hour interrogation, the police had finally gained a confession from Ernesto. The problem arose when the police officers said they had not advised Miranda of his right to an attorney. Miranda’s lawyer was concerned that his Sixth Amendment Right had been violated. This case was noticed by the ACLU and was taken to the Supreme Court. This case raised issues within the Supreme Court on the rights of Criminal Defendants. The Sixth Amendment right states that a Criminal Defendant, Miranda, has the right to a public trial with unnecessary delay, the right to a lawyer, the right to an impartial jury, and the right to know who your accusers are. This Amendment leads to the question, were Miranda 's rights violated? In Miranda 's case, her lawyers argued that Miranda was unaware of her rights as a criminal defendant. This was taken to the ACLU which then was taken to the United States Supreme Court. The court found that Miranda 's fifth Amendment had indeed been violated. This case also infringed upon Miranda 's 5th Amendment right which imposes restrictions on the government 's prosecution of a person accused of a crime. It shows “... that no person be required to testify against himself or herself in a criminal case and that no person be subjected to a second trial foran offense for which he or she has been duly tried previously.”

More about The Sixth Amendment Of Miranda Vs. Arizona

Open Document