Transcript of Miranda v. Arizona
Miranda vs. Arizona! arrested on March 18th, 1963, for the alleged kidnapping and rape** of an 18 year old woman, who had a mental impairment. ERNESTO MIRANDA lived in pheonix, AZ eighth grade dropout had a history of abnormal sexual behavior deprived childhood the case was set for trial in mid- june. Supreme Court Judge Yale McFate heard the case. Miranda's attorney, Alvin Moore was appointed to him by the court. by danielle herrera and miranda gonzales **the crime actually took place on March 2nd, 1963 It is argued that he should have known his rights, due to his criminal history. Miranda was not informed of his right to remain silent or his right to consult an attorney at any time during the interrogation process. "You have the right to remain silent. . . or not." Just ten days after the rape, Ernesto Miranda submitted a written confession, which the police took as an understanding of his rights. The victim, her sister, and the two officers who arrested Miranda were witnesses for the case. The written confession was the most critical piece of evidence they had. During the trial, Moore objected the introduction of Miranda's confession upon confronting the officers about their failure to read Miranda his rights. Judge McFate overruled Moore's objection. However, he did mention to the jurors that though he allowed the confession to remain evidence, it was their choice whether or not to overlook/overrule it. It didn't take long for the jurors to reach a decision. Miranda was found guilty of rape and kidnapping. He was sentenced to 20-30 years for EACH sentence. These two terms were to be served concurrently. The Errors Moore believed it wrong that the judge allowed the confession to be used. He also doubted the animosity of the crime; Arizona requires rape victims to resist as much as possible. The victim failed to show any signs of resistance at all. Moore immediately appealed the case. ESCOBEDO V. ILLINOIS In this case the court ruled that when police are focusing on a particular person in custody that refusal of the accompaniment of a lawyer and failing to brief him of his rights is a clear violation of the sixth amendment. The new judge ruled that the Escobedo case was not relelvant to Miranda's case. However, the state and federal courts had a hard time agreeing on what the case meant, so it was decided that the high court would have to revisit the Escobedo case. Feeling unjustified, Miranda submitted a plea for a writ of certiorari. The American Civil Liberties Union stepped in. . . Moore was too sick to represent Miranda this time. . . . . .so John J. Flynn, an attorney from one of Pheonix's most reputable law offices took the case pro bono. Flynn and Frank(head of the ACLU) said that they didn't know for sure whether or not Miranda was guilty. But, they said, Miranda had not been treated justly in the court of law, and deserved a fair chance. Miranda's case, along with four other cases with similar circumstances were heard by the Supreme Court in November 1965. February 1966 - The Supreme Court heard the Miranda case. Flynn argued that Miranda shouldn't be expected to know his rights due to his limited education and emotional disturbances. Gary Nelson represented the people of Arizona. No matter his efforts, the court appeared to be in favor of the defendants, due to the violation of the 5th and 6th amendments in all cases. In other words. . .Miranda was more than likely going to have his case appealed. The Amendments Amendment VFull transcript
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
. . .And it was. Miranda's conviction was overturned in June of 1966. He still had time to serve for a robbery he commited prior to this crime. Miranda was released on December 1972. But just four years after his release(1976), Miranda was stabbed to death in a bar fight. . . .oh well. Thank You!! Works cited: www.trutv.com http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com