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
Do you really want to delete this prezi?
Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.
Make your likes visible on Facebook?
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.
Miranda v. Arizona
Transcript of Miranda v. Arizona
1/19/13 Plantiff Respondent Important Dates The Challenge Main Ideas Ernesto Miranda The State of Arizona Represented by
Gary K. Nelson Represented By
John J. Flynn Miranda Arrested March 13, 1963 Argument Dates February 28 – March 1, 1966 Court Decision June 13, 1966 So, how did this all get started anyways? Background Can a forced confession be used as evidence in a court of law? Ernesto Miranda Born in 1940 to a
Mexican Immigrant His mother died when he was only six, eventually leading him to many problems in adulthood. He moved constantly and could never hold
a job for more than 2 weeks. Lost and confused, he joined the US Army, only to be dishonorably discharged a year and a half later. Things were looking pretty bleak for Ernesto... But just as he was about to lose hope, everything started to turn for him. He fell in love with and married Twila Hoffman, became a father, and landed a steady job in his hometown. Unfortunately for him, this streak would not last... "Jane Doe" She was 18 years old, lived an introverted personality due to her weight, and worked at a movie theater in Mesa. March 2, 1963 Jane took the midnight bus home and proceeded to walk to her house. Ernesto followed her home then abducted and raped her. He released Jane a few blocks from her home. Her family called 911 and the investigation began The Investigation Miranda was spotted 9 days later near the same bus stop. He was arrested the next morning. Jane was unable to point him out from the lineup, but police suspected it was Miranda from the beginning. The Officers interrogated him, lied several times, and eventually forced a confession after several threats. He then signed a disclaimer that said that the he was confessing voluntarily, without threats or promises of immunity, and “with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me.” Miranda Appeals Miranda appealed through the court system His lawyers argued his confession could not be used to convict him because it was obtained illegally. With no luck,
Miranda eventually appealed to the Supreme Court. Little did he know, the most cited case in the American Judicial System would become... Constitutional Questions The 5th Amendment “No person shall… be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” The 6th Amendment "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall… have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense,” 5th
Amendments 5 - 4 in favor of Miranda Majority Opinion Delivered by Chief Justice Earl Warren Miranda's Constitutional
Rights had been violated. Anyone in custody has a right to remain silent, and a right to a lawyer. If a person in custody wishes to remain silent, all interrogation must cease. Coercive interrogation can not be used to obtain any sort of evidence whatsoever. Overall, judicial restraint and strict interpretation
of the Constitution lead
sums up the dissenters. Clark's Dissent Declared the ruling "heavy-handed" and "one-sided" with fabricated and unsubstantiated reasoning. The 5th Amendment was being interpreted way too vaguely. No Historical uses in that way. Minority Opinion Tom Clark Byron White John Harlan Potter Stewart Any questions so far? Good. The court's landmark decision was... White's Dissent Harlan's Dissent Hugo Black William Douglas William Brennan Abe Fortas Argued that the court went "too far, too fast." He would have preferred a case-by-case analysis. Impacts The "Miranda Rights" were created and had to be read to all persons in custody immediately following arrest. 1) You have the right to remain silent. 2) Anything you say or do may be used against you in a court of law. 3) You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future. 4) If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning, if you wish. 5) If you decide to answer any questions now, without an attorney present, you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney. 6) Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present? *Each State writes its own rights, but they
all must contain a form of the following...* The entire police system needed to be reformed. Ethics of Interrogation. The entire arresting procedure needed to honor the rights unquestionably now, unlike the past. Created a more accountable, fair, and just system while upholding judicial integrity in the process. But what happened to Miranda? Well, his conviction was revoked by the supreme court, but was then quickly re-convicted without using his confession as evidence. After he was released on parole, he autographed "Miranda Rights" cards. He was stabbed in a bar fight on January 31st, 1976. Reaction and Legacy The decision was highly unpopular and was denounced almost immediately. They felt it was unfair to inform suspected criminals of their rights.... they should know them and be punished if they don't. Many conservatives, including President Nixon claimed the ruling would undermine police efficiency and their ability to do their job, ultimately resulting in more crime. Opponents cite that there is no effect of the Miranda Rights on whether or not a confession is made. However, despite the strong public opinion, the courts have consistently upheld the original decision. Dickerson v. United States
(2000) Challenged the entire constitutionality of reading Miranda Rights. Miranda v. Arizona: UPHELD Rhode Island v. Innis
(1980) Expanded the definition of "interrogation" to include any statement by police eliciting a potentially self-incriminating statement. Miranda v. Ariziona
UPHELD Missouri v. Seibert
(2004) Ended a practice where Missouri police were purposely withheld Miranda warnings until suspects would confess. Miranda v. Arizona
UPHELD It's clear to see that the landmark Miranda v. Arizona decision set a clear precedent that has been upheld since its original inception. My Opinion I agree with the Majority opinion and feel that it leads to... a better society. a fairer judicial system. valuing human rights. increased integrity of evidence. less corruption. dignity as a society. fairer treatment. less police brutality. But that's just my opinion... Any Questions? Thank You. (1966)