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?
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.
Miranda vs. Arizona Case
Transcript of Miranda vs. Arizona Case
-The fifth and sixth amendments were broken (Miranda v. Arizona (1966)).
- 5th: gives a criminal the right to refuse to be a witness against himself (Miranda v. Arizona (1966)).
6th: gives criminals a defense attorney (Miranda v. Arizona (1966)).
- resulted in the “Miranda Rights” (mandatory for interrogation) (Miranda v. Arizona (1966)).
- Miranda still received the same sentence as the first trial (20-30 years in jail) (Miranda v. Arizona (1966)). Miranda vs. Arizona The defense used the word ‘compelled’ to try to prove Miranda’s innocence. Repetition of the word is a rhetorical device. Several examples of how the word ‘compelled’ may be used in the opening arguments of the case, and mainly built the case on all the possible meanings of the word. It was used in the 5th amendment, making it a crucial part in the case (Miranda v. Arizona, Oral Arguments, 1996).
The prosecution used logos to help build his opening proceedings with “Next, the Court found that the defendant was advised of his rights in the reading of the typed portion immediately preceding its transcript. They permitted that document to lift itself by its own bootstraps, so to speak, and to indicate that here was a man who was knowledgeable concerning his legal rights, despite the facts and circumstances of his background and education” due to the fact that Miranda signed his statement, which was also mentioned by the state in opening arguments. Therefore, it is only logical for the state to say that Miranda knew of all his rights due to his action of signing his statement that said that he had full knowledge of all his rights and what he stated had happened (Miranda v. Arizona, Oral Arguments, 1996). The closing arguments for the defense and prosecution:
Throughout the argument supporting Miranda, the main idea discussed was the fact that Miranda was mentally abnormal and only had an education until the 8th grade. Thus, he was not mentally capable of understanding and being aware of his right to the 5th amendment prior to committing his crime, and his “confession” should therefore not be considered sufficient evidence. The closing argument further discussed that because Miranda was unaware of his rights, he was therefore compelled to incriminate himself and admit to his crime. Because he was compelled to do so and did not voluntarily admit to his crime, his confession should further be considered insufficient. The argument was based upon Miranda’s lack of proper education, lack of mental capacity/understanding, and his being “forced” to confess. This argument was effective not only because of the speaker’s sufficient knowledge of the details concerning the trial (this enabled the speaker to attain respect concerning his interpretation of the trial and his argument(s) to support Miranda) but also the speaker’s use of pathos to instil pity concerning Miranda’s lack of education and mental abnormality within the people of the court. This enhances the argument for the defense by focusing on the emotions of the court. The argument for the defense also utilizes logos, providing various logical arguments to support Miranda, the most obvious being that because Miranda's mental capacity is lacking, he was unable to understand his rights and prevent self-incriminating statements. This logical appeal provides the court with reasonable evidential support. (Miranda v Arizona, Oral Arguments, 1996).
Respondent/Prosecution (The State of Arizona):
The respondent/prosecution’s argument consisted of several refutes to the points made within the petitioner/defense’s argument and building off of these refutes. The prosecution’s argument begins with the speaker explaining that he understands that although he agrees with the defense’s statement that the 5th amendment applies to all people, regardless of intelligence level, it is not necessary to bring up the issue of equal rights, because he claims that intelligence is not required to be aware of the rights available to U.S. citizens. Furthermore, the prosecution’s speaker discusses that Miranda was in fact told of his rights to remain silent, refrain from stating anything self- incriminating, etc. Thus, Miranda’s confession/interrogation should be used/considered. The entirety of the prosecution’s argument covered these ideas. The speaker primarily utilized logos, providing various facts and reasons concerning the incidences of Miranda’s crime, the arrest, interrogation, etc. while “poking holes” within the defense’s argument. The speaker’s utilization of mainly logos (if not only logos) allows for a stronger argument consisting of key points supported with substantial evidence (Miranda v Arizona, Oral Arguments, 1996). The possible consequences and which one(s) are applied:
- consequences often vary depending on severity of the crime(s)
- Ernesto was originally sentenced to serve 20-30 years in jail, but even after his trial at the Supreme Court his sentence did not change.
- sentences for other cases concerning crimes similar to those of Ernesto Miranda (rape, kidnapping, robbery,etc):
-15 years sentence in a rape case in Queens, New York (Ojito 1997).
-700+ years sentence in a rape case in Los Angeles, California (Becker 1997). By: Jamie, Amsha, Jenna, and Andrew
3B - Ernesto Miranda charged with 1st degree rape, kidnapping, and robbery (Miranda v. Arizona (1966)).
- allegedly confessed without a counsel present (Miranda v. Arizona (1996)).
- first sentenced to 20-30 years but he appealed to the Supreme Court by claiming that the police unconstitutionally recorded his confession and the court ruled that the prosecution couldn’t introduce his confession as evidence (Miranda v. Arizona (1966). Sources Cited
1. BECKER, M. (1997, Apr 01). Rapist sentenced to 700 years in prison; courts: Judge says man, who was found guilty of kidnapping and
attacking 15 women, 'is not fit to live in society.'. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/421295346?accountid=10988
2. Gribben, Mark. "The Trial of Ernest Miranda." MIRANDA VS ARIZONA: THE CRIME THAT CHANGED AMERICAN JUSTICE â â Crime Library on
TruTV.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Jan. 2013.
3. "Miranda v. Arizona (1966)." PBS.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Jan 2013.
4. Miranda v. Arizona, Oral Arguments. Proc. of Miranda v. Arizona, Oral Arguments, District of
Columbia, Washington DC. UMN, 28 Feb. 1996. Web. 18 Jan. 2013. <http://www.soc.umn.edu/~samaha/cases/miranda_v_arizona_oral_arguments.htm>.
5. MIRANDA v. ARIZONA. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 23 January
6. Ojito, M. (1997, Apr 10). Kidnapping victim angered at her abductors' sentences. New York
Ties. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/430786154?accountid=10988
7. USCOURTSGOV RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Jan. 2013.
<http://www.uscourts.gov/EducationalResources/ClassroomActivities/FifthAmendment/mirandaVarizonaOverview.aspx>. Justice Byron R. White: He attended Colorado university and graduated 1st in his class, he played a variety of sports as well. He then won a scholarship to Oxford university, after attending the school he got a law degree at Yale university. In 1961 he was the attorney general deputy, and he was later chosen by President Kennedy to be on the Supreme Court. He was known to practice Episcopal tradition which influenced many of his decisions. He was also known for staying very moderate during a very liberal time in the court (MIRANDA v. ARIZONA).
Justice Potter Stewart: He grew up in Cincinnati and later attended Yale university graduating near the top of his class. He was appointed to the court by President Eisenhower. He was also an Episcopalian meaning that he was very open to new social ideas and believed that everyone is equal. He fluctuated between liberal and conservative, but he primarily stayed conservative (MIRANDA v. ARIZONA).
Justice John M. Harlan: He was known to be the most intelligent conservative on the court and publicly disagreed with many liberals in the court. He was known to be very civil and kind to his opponents (MIRANDA v. ARIZONA).
Justice Tom C. Clark: Clark was extremely active in the Texas Democratic primary group, he was appointed by president Truman who later regretted his decision due to unknown reasons. Clark later retired to avoid legal conflicts since his son was just appointed to be Attorney General (MIRANDA v. ARIZONA).
Justice Abe Fortas: Abe grew up with his immigrant father and was given a pretty low level education, but he made it into Yale law school but dropped out halfway through to go into private practice in Washington as a defense attorney. He was eventually put on the court President Johnson, but he only served for a short three years due to people growing suspicious of his involvement with a stock manipulator (MIRANDA v. ARIZONA).
Justice William J. Brennan Jr.: Justice Brennan was widely known as the most liberal justice to ever serve on the court. He was appointed by republican President Eisenhower. He made significant strides in the areas of free expression and criminal procedure (MIRANDA v ARIZONA).
Justice William O. Douglas: Douglas was a very strange case, he did not trust the government and was in fierce support of individual rights, he was born with Polio and had other serious medical conditions throughout his life. Despite all of this, he served the longest time on the court at a grand total of thirty-six years and seven months (MIRANDA v. ARIZONA).
Justice Hugo Black: Justice Black was one of the most controversial judges appointed to the court becuase of the fact that he was formerly a Ku Klux Klan member. People tried to petition to remove him from the court, but were unsuccessful (MIRANDA v. ARIZONA).
Chief Justice Earl Warren: Justice Warren started off as a republican governor but upon being appointed to the court, he proved to be a very unwavering liberal. He served on famous cases such as Brown v. Board of Education and Miranda v. Arizona (MIRANDA v. ARIZONA).
The Justices came to the verdict for him to serve twenty to thirty years in jail. This verdict was very controversial because some people believed that his sentence should have been shortened due to the fact that he was not aware of his rights at the time. On the other hand, some people thought that if anything his sentence should have been extended due to the severity of the crime. Based on our research, our group has concluded that Miranda's sentence was in fact too short when considering the severity of Miranda's crime.