Miranda v.

Arizona, (1966)
The case: A 9th grader was accuses for committing crimes including robbery rape kidnap and
murder.
Legal charge: 20- 30 years of prison
The investigation: Miranda was accused of these crimes and bought to custody and had a forces
out confession.
The trail: During Miranda's arrest he was not informed of his right to an attorney or against self
incrimination in other words he was denied the right to stay silent.
When Miranda came forward with his defence. The court took it into consideration and passed
an act /law under Miranda’s name saying every human has the right to stay silent or refuse to
witness against himself.
Summary:
This case was knotted as to find the difference between royal blue and navy blue.
In an humanistic point of view no after the age the criminal a crime is a crime committed.
Miranda did no good to have a law under his name.
If an accused is truly innocent then the evidences will speak forth.
In today’s time Miranda law is being misused by great monsters leaving the victims of abuse
rape etc. without justice.
Marbury v. Madison, (1803)
The crime: Congress passed a law against the constitution.
Summary:
Although my knowledge of this case in small as I was incapable of the interpolitics of the case. I
do understand that
Federal laws that conflict the constitution are invalid.
Through this case the power of judicial court was established amongst other courts.