Miranda v. Arizona

Justice Stats

The courts vote was a 5 to 4 majority. Justices Warren, Black, Douglas, Brennan, and Fortas concurred and Justices Clark, Harian, Stewart, and White voted in the minority. Warren was Chief Justice at the time and also wrote the majority opinion in this case. Justices Clark, White, and Harian all wrote dissents. Justice White joined Justice Harian's dissent, Justice Harian joined Justice White's dissent, and Justice Stewart joined both Justice Harian's and Justice White's dissent.

Amendment Violation

Significance of Majority Opinion

5th Amendment: right to remain silent

6th Amendment: right to legal counsel

These rights were not passed on to Ernesto Miranda; therefore, the evidence collected would be breaking the Escobedo rule (illegally obtained evidence like Ernesto's confession)

This case defined the rights of the accused in the United States. This decision is still the basis of how the US treats the accused. The famous "Miranda Rights" were actually written in to the majority opinion by Chief Justice Warren. These rights are still read to everyone who is arrested to ensure that they know the rights that they are entitled to as American citizens. This trial also put to rest a hot-button debate at the time about the rights of the accused, especially when race played a factor.

Plaintiff: Ernesto Miranda

Decisions Overturned

The Miranda case did not overturn any previous decisions made by the Supreme Court. It did cause the court to add on to many other decisions made just before the Miranda trial such as Mapp v. Ohio (1961), Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), and Escobedo v. Illinois (1964). These decisions were all made to keep with the idea of a "fairness-standard" set by the Warren Court. The Warren Court was trying to make it clear that any conviction made in an unfair case would likely be overturned by a higher court in order to ensure a fair trial for all citizens.

Supreme Court Decision

Plaintiff's Case

Amendment Violation

Defendants Case

14th Amendment "[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . "

If the law was not read to this one man, where in any other cases rights would have been recited, it is not fair treatment in the judicial system to use a confession.

The Supreme Court decision of Ernesto Miranda was decided by a 5 to 4 majority. "The Court held that prosecutors could not use statements stemming from custodial interrogation of defendants unless they demonstrated the use of procedural safeguards 'effective to secure the privilege against self- incrimination,'" (www.oyez.org) These "safegaurds" include the right to remain silent and the right to have an attorney present for interrogations. This was an change to the previous laws because the exact regulations for arrests and interrogations had never been decided upon. The decision put to rest much of the controversy surrounding the rights of the accused.

The state of Arizona's argument included the fact the Miranda was aware of his rights already since he had been arrested previously. They also stated that the prosecution was in compliance with Arizona state law and he signed the confession willingly. The main argument was that all the Supreme Court was doing was hindering the states police work and creating something out of nothing. However, these arguments were not considered strong due to the fact that Miranda's constitutional rights were violated and therefore this was a Supreme Court issue.

Defendant's

Case

Simple Beginnings

Start of the Legal Battle

Ernesto Miranda: Miranda was born in Arizona in 1941. His father was a Mexican immigrant and his mother died at a young age. Miranda dropped out of school in 8th grade after he was convicted of his first crime: burglary. He committed and was convicted of various perverted and burglary crimes. He was ordered to go to psychiatric counseling; however, he only attended one session. He was "married" under common-law and had a daughter with this woman at age 22. He was then convicted of kidnap and rape of an 18-year-old girl which started the Miranda v. Arizona case.

Simple Beginnings

Miranda was arrested in his home and taken to the police station. There he was identified by the victim. He was interrogated but not told his rights beforehand. He signed a written confession two hours later to the kidnapping and sexual assault of the 18-year-old that also said he was aware of his legal rights. He was sentenced to 20-30 years in prison and the ruling was based mostly on his confession. Because this evidence was obtained without the rights being read to him, Ernesto took this case all the way to the Supreme Court.

Other Related Cases

Miranda v. Arizona

The 18-year-old girl involved in this case was mildly retarded. On March 3rd at 12:10 am, she was coming home from work from a movie theater. She rode the bus and was walking a short distance home when she was abducted by Ernesto Miranda. He drove to a Phoenix desert and raped her and returned her to her neighborhood two hours later. His last words to her were "Whether you tell your mother what has happened is none of my business, but pray for me."

Rights named after Ernesto Miranda

Vignera v. New York- a dress shop was robbed by Michael Vignera who confessed without knowing the right to an attorney

Westover v. United States- Carl Calvin Westover was convicted of two bank robberies and confessed; the local police did not read him his rights; however, the FBI did

California v. Stewart- Roy Allen Stewart was arrested for a murder and a string of robberies. he was questioned 9 times and he was never read his rights, so he confessed and was sentenced to death (this sentence was reversed)

Road the the Supreme Court

THANK YOU!

The case went to the local District Court where Miranda was charged with kidnapping and sexual assault. His defense attorneys appealed this case to the Supreme Court of Arizona because Miranda had incriminated himself and his confession shouldn't have been used without someone reading him his rights. He was heard in the Arizona Supreme Court and the ruling said that his rights had not been violated. The case was then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1966 where the decision was reversed. With the 5 to 4 ruling, they decided Miranda's rights had been violated. the rights that were violated appear in the 5th amendment and the 6th amendment: the right to remain silent and the right to legal counsel, respectively.

By: Pete Dennis and Stephanie Dowdy