Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start 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.

DeleteCancel

Miranda v. Arizona 1966

Our court case presentation for Civics
by

Rebecca Bennett

on 20 February 2013

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Miranda v. Arizona 1966

The Court's Decision
(Continued)
Maricopa County Superior Court What Changed Precedents •Brown v. Mississippi (1936) Ruled that 5th amendment protected individuals from being forced to confess

•Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) Ruled people accused of felonies can have an attorney, even if they can’t afford to pay



•Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) When person is denied right to counsel with attorney, their 6th amendment has been violated What was in question? - Fifth Amendment (the right to remain silent)
- Sixth Amendment (the right to an attorney)
- Fourteenth Amendment (Equal Protection Clause and Due Process)
Since the policemen did not inform him of these rights they were violating these Amendments. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Background of the case:

Mr. Ernesto Miranda was a poor Mexican American immigrant
residing in Pheonix, Arizona. He Through the Courts Law Enforcement now have to tell those arrested:
of their right to remain silent
that anything said can and will be used against them
of their right to an attorney
If they can't afford an attorney, that one will be provided
These are now called the Miranda Rights. WANTED Emily Barré
Jennifer Steele
Laura Opsahl-Ong
Aisha Singh Arizona State Supreme Court Background of the case:

Mr. Ernesto Miranda was a Mexican American
immigrant residing in Phoenix, Arizona. The Supreme Court When the police arrested him,
they did not read him his rights. Verdict: Guilty
Verdict: Guilty John Marshall Harlan II
Byron R. White
Potter Stewart
Tom Clark The Dissent What do YOU think??? The Majority William J. Brennan Jr
William O. Douglas
Abe Fortas
Earl Warren
Hugo Lafayette Black The Court's Decision Miranda also had a previous criminal record. What happened to Miranda after the case? After being arrested several more times, Miranda was stabbed to death in a fight. Ironically, his murderer was released after he exercised his Miranda Rights and remained silent. Unconstitutional QUIZ 1) In Miranda v. Arizona 1966, which rights were in question?

2) What amendments were those rights in question from?

3) Name a precedent of this case.

4) What changed because of this case?

5) Name 2 rights police are required to remind you of when arrested.
ANSWERS 1) The right to remain silent (self-incrimination) and the right to an attorney were in question, as well as the states rights.
2) The three rights listed above come from the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. The Fourteenth Amendment was also in question.
3) Brown v. Mississippi or Gideon v. Wainwright or Escobedo v. Illinois
4) Nowadays, law enforcement officials are required to remind the person being detained of their constitutional right to a free attorney and inform them that anything they say can and will be used against them, along with their right to remain silent.
5) You have the right to remain silent.
Anything you say can and will be used against you.
You have the right to an attorney, even if you can’t afford one.
Full transcript