Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


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.


Miranda V. Arizona

No description

Maggie Laws

on 12 April 2016

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Miranda V. Arizona

Facts of the case
Courts who have heard the case
The Arizona supreme court was the only court that heard about case before it got appealed to supreme court
Petition before the Supreme Court
Miranda arguments - did not get read the 5th amendment, 6th amendment and confession was illegally obtained

Petition before the Supreme Court

Relief sought
What the plaintiff really wants - to uphold his conviction and not further damage the work of police
Lower court verdict
Miranda’s prosecuting attorney used his confession as evidence and he was convicted and sentenced for 20-30 years
Arguments for the defendant
Miranda's arguments - he was not read his 5th amendment and 6th amendment rights , and confession was illegally obtained
Miranda V. Arizona
Maggie Laws, Katie Terry & Austin Trimble
Majority decision of the Court
Supreme court vote in the majority
Date for majority decision
June 13th 1966
Justices who voted for the majority
Justices Warren, Black, Douglas, Brennan, and Fortas
Who wrote the majority decision
Chief Justice Earl Warren
Majority opinion
Ruled that prosecutors can not use any statements that are given when the suspect is not aware of their rights
Concurrent opinions
There was no concurring opinion for the Miranda v. Arizona case
Difference between concurrent opinion and majority opinion
A majority opinion and a concurring opinion both conclude a decision based on more than half of the court, but a concurring opinion does have the same reason for reaching the agreement
Dissenting opinion(s)
Argued that the majority opinion took the 5th amendment too strictly and said that they should keep the suspect informed. They also thought any confessions said in an interrogation should not be completely eliminated if they were not aware of their rights.
Supreme Court vote in the dissent
The Supreme Court vote was 4 in 5-4.
Justice who wrote the opinion for the dissent
Dissenting opinion- Justice Harlan and joined by Justices Stewart and White

Dissenting in part opinion- Justice Clark
Dissenting opinion information
Concurrent opinions written
Differences between concurrent opinions and dissenting opinion
Because of the case, every suspect or accused person brought in for questioning must be informed of their rights.
The rights are known now as the Miranda Rights, which must be read out according to the Supreme court ruling.
Relation to Constitution/Amendments
This case did not change any of the amendments in the Constitution.
Is the case still relevant
Miranda v. Arizona remains an extremely important case in our society today. People are now aware of everything in court before something happens that could alter their future greatly.
Case that superseded previous case
There was no case that superseded this case.
Arguments for the plaintiff
Petition before the Supreme Court
For arizona - he negotiated with police officers, he signed confession willingly, and he had been in trouble before

The court ruled in the favor of Miranda
The supreme court majority vote was 5

The decision was a 5-4 vote
Ernesto Miranda was accused of kidnapping and rape. In lineup he was chosen and later did a verbal and written confession. Miranda was sentenced to 20-30 years, even though he was not told of all his rights in court.
Full transcript