Introducing 

Prezi AI.

Your new presentation assistant.

Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.

Loading…
Transcript

Miranda v.s Arizona

By Dayna Marshall

Background

In 1963 Pheonix, Arizona an poor Mexican immigrant name Ernesto Miranda was identified by a victim in a police lineup.

Miranda was charged with rape and kidnapping and was interrogated for two hours while in police custody but was not

however, informed of his 5th Amendment right and his 6th Amendment right.

Miranda appealed to the Supreme Court of Arizona.

Even though, the police amided that they did not inform Miranda of his rights, the state argued that he has been arrested before and is aware of his fifth and sixth ammendment.

During Miranda's confession to the crime, his defense attorney argued that his confession should have been excluded from trial. The Supreme Court agreed deciding that the police had not properly inform Miranda of his rights.

The Supreme Court denied Miranda's appeal and his conviction was to be uphold.

Miranda confessed in writing to the crimes in which he was charged as a result of the interrogation.c

My Opinion

THE END

In 1964, after Miranda's arrest, before the Court hearing, the Supreme Court ruled that when an accused person is denied the right to consult with his attorney, his or her Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of a lawyer is violated.

hn 1965, the Supreme Court of the United States decided to hear Miranda's case along with three other simular cases. Since Miranda's case was brought up first the decision of by the Court was named the Miranda v.s Arizona case and was handed down in 1966.

I think that everything happened the way it should have accept how the police interrogated him for 2 hours without attorney's assistance. And how he was not informed of his rights.

Learn more about creating dynamic, engaging presentations with Prezi