Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Paul Joubran
Miranda VS Arizona
The Supreme Court passed this decision with a 5-4 ruling. The court decided either evidence that helps and hurts the defendant can and will be used in the court of law but only if the defendant was informed of the right to consult an attorney for questioning that might lead to self-incrimination. You might known as a Miranda rights. This became routine so that all suspects were informed of their rights. Miranda versus Arizona was decided in the Supreme Court in parallel with three other cases.
Westover versus United States Vignera versus New York California versus Stewart
Miranda Rights
Formal warning given by police to criminal suspects. This must be done before the suspect is interrogated. If suspect gives up the right to an attorney for interrogation the suspect may invoke these rights at any time.
Background
In the 1960s there were many movements for legal aid Allowed defendants to have legal aid available to them at no cost through various associations These movements, most notably, led to the creation of the legal services Corporation under Pres. Lyndon B. Johnson At the time many police interrogation practices were considered to be barbaric and unjust and sometimes even inhumane.
History
50th anniversary of the Miranda rights On March 13, 1963 Ernesto Miranda was arrested Arrested by the Phoenix Police Department.
History
Phoenix police believe they had enough evidence linking him to the kidnapping and rape of a 17-year-old girl. After two hours of interrogation, Mirandaended up saying confession.
History
The confessions stated "I do hereby swear that I make this statement voluntarily and of my own free will, with no threats, coercion, or promises of immunity, and with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me.
History
It is now clear that Miranda was never told of his right to have an attorney and not advised about his right to remain silent and that what he says in interrogation can will be used against him in court.
History
What is written confession was offered by the prosecution court His court appointed lawyer objected to this evidence on the basis that his rights have not been presented to him during the time of the interrogation. The objection was overruled, Miranda was convicted of rape and sentenced to 20-30 years. Miranda's lawyer filed an appeal in the Arizona Supreme Court claiming that his client was not fully aware of his rights and should not have been available as court evidence.
SPECIAL THANKS
OBAMAO