- Slides: 7
Miranda v. Arizona 1966
Ernesto Miranda I did not know i had a right to a layer first I did not know that i didn't have to answer their questions while being interrogated They should have told me these rights Argued he had not been informed of his constitutional right to remain silent or have a lawyer present
Summary of the background of the case Miranda was arrested at his home and taken in custody to a police station where he was identified as suspect. He was then interrogated by police officers for a few hours, which resulted in a confession. At trial, both confessions were presented to the jury. Miranda was found guilty of kidnapping and rape and was sentenced to 20 -30 years of prison on each count. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona held that Miranda’s constitutional rights were not violated in obtaining the confession. Ernesto Miranda Phoenix police department Arizona Supreme Court
Constitutional Issue Whether “statements obtained from an individual who is subjected to custodial police interrogation” are admissible against him in a criminal trial and whether “procedures which assure that the individual is accorded his privilege under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution not to be compelled to incriminate himself” are necessary.
President at the time of case Lyndon B. Johnson
Summary of Supreme Court decision In a 5 -4 majority, the court held that statements made in response to an interrogation by a defendant in a police custody will be admissible at a trial only if the prosecution can show that the defendant was informed of the right to consult with an attorney and of the right of self-incrimination before police questioning, and that the defendant understood these rights, but voluntarily waive them.
Bibliography https: //en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Lyndon_B. _Johnson https: //www. oyez. org/cases/1965/759 http: //www. uscourts. gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-andcase-summary-miranda-v-arizona https: //en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Miranda_v. _Arizona