Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Miranda v. Arizona
Transcript of Miranda v. Arizona
Miranda was taken into interrogation after being identified by the victim in a lineup.
He was interrogated by police and wrote a confession after.
Defense and Prosecution
Position of Defense: A failure to inform Miranda for his constitutional rights made his confessions illegally obtained, therefore it cannot be used in court.
Position of Prosecution: Miranda knows police procedure. He negotiated with police officers with intelligence and understanding. He signed his written confession willingly. The Court needed to stop overreacting and focus on the fact the he was guilty and his punishment was just.
Miranda's Written Confession
Miranda v. Arizona Case Summary
End Result of Case
Miranda was tried again by the State of Arizona.
His confession wasn't taken in as part of the evidence.
Miranda was sentenced to 20-30 years in prison for the charges of kidnapping and rape.
The Miranda Rights, also known as the Miranda Warning, is a rule that law enforcement are required to give in order to protect an individual in custody before interrogation.
Miranda v. Arizona
Argued: Febraury 28, 1966-March 2, 1966
Decided: October 10, 1966
The Court overturned Miranda's conviction.
Miranda then went for an appeal and withdrew his confession.
In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was a Mexican immigrant charged with the kidnapping and rape of an 18-year old girl from Phoenix, Arizona.
Miranda's Fifth Amendment was violated. The Fifth Amendment is the right to remain silent to protect yourself against compelled self-incrimination. His Sixth Amendment of the right to counsel was violated as well.
What are Miranda Rights?
Why is it important that suspects are reminded of their rights while in police custody?
What constitutional issue(s) is present in the case?
Supreme Court Decision
The Supreme Court said that "Detained criminal suspects, prior to police questioning, must be informed of the constitutional right to an attorney and against self-incrimination."
It wasn't a unanimous decision but was a 5-4 margin instead.