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

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.

No, thanks

Miranda v. Arizona 1966

Sophie Kaplan and Hannah Magoveny
by

Sophie Kaplan

on 22 January 2013

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Miranda v. Arizona 1966

The Crime Lower Court Verdict The Supreme Court Miranda v. Arizona Sophie Kaplan and Hannah Magoveny -Supreme Court heard the case on Feb.
28th to March 1st, 1996

-Appealed Miranda's initial conviction*

-Defense said that his 5th amendment right was violated. aka the Gideon Rule which was granted defendant's counsel in their trail.
Denied counsel: interrogation
Denied counsel: preliminary hearing Given counsel: in his trial


-Arizona argued he was fully aware of his rights*

-Decision: 5-4

-Majority: Warren, Black, Douglas, Brennan, and Fortas

-Majority explanation: Arizona did not follow legal procedures, "Procedural safeguards are effective to secure the privilege against self incrimination" (Warren), and " Miranda was not in anyway apprised of his rights... without these warnings [his] statements were admissible” (Warren)





Importance/significance of this case - In the 1960's an immigrant,
named Ernesto Miranda, was charged
with the rape and kidnapping of an 18 year old girl
Interrogated Confessed Charged with:
Kidnapping and rape
18 year old girl from Phoenix, Arizona Unaware of his rights Attorney
To remain silent/ against self-incrimination 1st court:
Arizona Supreme
Court -Michael Vignera: charge with robbery

-Carl Calvin Westover: charge with 2 robberies

-Roy Allen Stewart: Arrested for multiple purse snatching

** All men where not aware of their right to council
their right to remain silent. Defendant:

Plaintiff: Ernesto Miranda

The State of Arizona Charged Miranda with kidnapping and rape Persecution Convicted Based their arguments off of Miranda's confession Made its way to the Supreme Court What is the U.S Supreme Court?
The highest U.S Court
Has original jurisdiction on some cases i.e disputes between states U.S Supreme Court: Overturned Arizona conviction But then... the Arizona police found new evidence Convicted him with this 20-30 year sentence Relief Sought:

Arizona wants the Supreme Court to uphold their decision and jail time for Miranda who raped
and kidnapped an 18 year
old girl Effected:

Due process*

Miranda Rights*

Does this case remain relevant or has it been superseded by another case?

Not superseded*

Yes relevant* Now please pay your attention
to our poster: Thank you for your time The Gideon Rule was created after Gideon v. Warren which decsion regarding the 5th Amendment. Miranda Rights
Significance Entire System Police Suspects treated fairly gives them a system to follow
to ensure that they do not violate the
suspects rights Protects Due Process
Makes people aware of their rights
Makes sure their is strong evidence Why is this case a "Landmark" Supreme Court Case? Order:

Hand out class copies (tell what is in them)
Start Presentation
Talk about graphic
Full transcript