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?
Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.
Transcript of Miranda Rights
• Any person who is arrested and questioned as a suspect in a crime be informed that he or she has the right to remain silent.
• The suspect is told that whatever he or she says can be used in court as evidence and that the suspect has the right speak to an attorney.
• If he or she cannot afford to hire an attorney, the court will provide one at no cost.
Miranda rights must be read to a person in police custody prior to interrogation in a statement known as the Miranda Warning. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) What happens if Miranda warnings are not given to a suspect
who is later put on trial for criminal charges? Why we have Miranda Rights Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Amendments V Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor 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; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. Overruling Miranda What aspect of the Fifth Amendment does the Miranda Decision address? What aspect of the Sixth Amendment does the Miranda decision address? In what circumstances does the
Miranda decision apply? • If not stated, suspects may be coerced into giving confessions that may be false.
• Some controls on the process of interrogation are necessary.
• Makes sure that American citizens, both innocent and guilty are free from government abuse.
• It helps those that are (uneducated, mentally ill, non–English speakers and those that don’t understand their right to remain silent). What could additionally be other reasons we have the
Miranda Rights in place? • 22 year old Ernesto Miranda was arrested in March 1963 for allegedly abducting and raping an 18 year old woman.
• Miranda was questioned for two hours, which then led to a signed a confession admitting to the crime.
• His lawyer Alvin Moore claimed that Miranda was not informed of his rights verbally. Jury still found Miranda guilty and he was sentenced to two concurrent 20-30 years terms.
• His lawyer appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, but the appeal was denied in 1965.
• John Flynn and John Frank took over Miranda’s case and in 1965 wrote a petition stating that Miranda’s Sixth Amendment right had been violated.
• In February of 1966 the case was heard by the United States Supreme Court. • Miranda’s Lawyers argued that not only was his right to counsel violated, but his Fifth Amendment rights were also ignored.
• On June 13, 1966 Chief Justice Earl Warren ruled that whenever a suspect is interrogated while in police custody, the situation is inherently compelling. He stated “No person…shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”
• The court defined custody as being deprived of freedom of action in any significant way.
• The court developed a set of rights known as Miranda Warnings in which a suspect is informed of his rights before he is interrogated.
• These rights must be administered prior to interrogation and if the suspect decides to answer questions even after they were read he or she has waived their rights. (As long as the waiver is voluntary and suspect is aware of the rights they are giving up).
• In the case that a suspect waives his or hers rights, then they must sign a waiver form. Other Rules Included
in Miranda • The warnings are mandatory and cannot be skipped because the suspect supposedly knows their rights.
• The Miranda exclusionary rules applies to both full confessions and to admissions; statements in which guilt can be inferred.
• The rule applies to inculpatory as well as exclusionary statements (statements a suspect might think will clear them).
• The burden of proving voluntary waiver is on the state.
• The fact that a suspect answers questions after being warned is not a waiver, the waiver must be explicit.
• Interrogation must cease if suspect wishes to remain silent or consult an attorney.
• A person is in custody for Miranda purposes if the person is “deprived of his freedom in any significant way” • In 1968, Congress passed a law known as 18 USC § 3501 in which is stated “In any criminal prosecution brought by the United States or by the District of Columbia, a confession, as defined in subsection (e) hereof, shall be admissible in evidence if it is voluntarily given.”
• Section (e): The term “confession” means any confession of guilt of any criminal offense or any self-incriminating statement made or given orally or in writing.
• Allowing collateral uses of statements taken when Miranda warning was violated.
• Three different types of collateral uses: Derivative, Impeachment and Cured Statements. • Derivative Evidence: Evidence obtained illegally. Making it inadmissible because of the illegal way in which it was obtained.
Michigan v. Tucker (1974)
• Impeachment: Involves attempts to diminish or attack a person’s credibility.
Harris v. New York (1971)
• Cured Statements: Statements made after an incriminating statement that was done without Miranda warnings or defective warnings.
Oregon v. Elstad (1985) Do you think it is fair to use collateral statements? Public Safety Exemption New York v. Quarles (1984)
Allowing the introduction of a Miranda violated statement when it is obtained under conditions in which is it’s a threat to public safety. Miranda is a
• In 2000 in the court case Dickerson v. United States, the Supreme Court held Miranda as a constitutional rule.
• Congress can by legislation modify or void a court made rule except for a court made doctrine of constitutional law.
• Chief Justice Rehnquist stated “We hold that Miranda, being a constitutional decision of this Court, may not be in effect overruled by an act of Congress, and we decline to overrule Miranda ourselves…”