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 .vs. Arizona

No description
by

Shante Crawford

on 2 April 2013

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Miranda .vs. Arizona

The Fifth Amendment Rights Dissenting Opinion Majority Opinion Significance of Ruling Final Ruling The Final ruling was 5-4 People Involved in the case The fifth amendment was the main issue of the case because it states "that no one may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law".

The defense argued Miranda was not properly advised of his rights to prevent self incrimination, and was not advised of his right to an attorney. Miranda .vs. Arizona The dissenting opinion of the case, presented by John Harlan and Byron White, was that the court made a decision that was not stated in the constitution The majority opinion of the case, presented by Chief Justice Warren, was that “The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court.

In other words, the majority opinion, believed that a suspect must be clearly informed of his rights before any interrogation. The significance of this case was it proved that criminal defendants had a right to know their rights under the constitution prior to questioning by law enforcement. By: Shante Crawford
2ND block

Due Date: April 2nd Chief Justice- Earl Warren
Defendant- Ernesto Miranda
Justices- Hugo Black, William O. Douglas, William Brennan, and Abe Fortas
Dissenting Justices- John M. Harlen, Byron White, Potter Stewart
Defence Attorney- John J. Flynn
Judge- Yale McFate Case Summary In March 1963 Phoenix, Arizona, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in connection of rape and kidnapping of an 18 year old while she was walking home from her Movie theater job.

While in police custody, Miranda confessed to robberry and rape.

The defense argued that his fifth amendment rights against self incrimination were violated.

Miranda's attorney argued that the confession was coerced, meaning Miranda was persuaded by force or threats. Work Cited http://www.ehow.com/about_4566779_miranda-v-arizona-case.html Ernesto
Miranda Earl Warren Miranda was convicted of both rape and kidnapping and sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison. http://salempress.com/store/sampl es/us_court_cases/us_court_cases_miranda.htm The constitutional question was: “does a suspect have the right to be informed of his right of protection against self-incrimination, right to remain silent, and right to counsel before interrogation?” http://blogs.rowlandhs.org/groups/apgovernmenteconomics/wiki/0b57b/Miranda_v_Arizona.html John Harlan Byron White He states that the majority opinion “has no significant support in the history of the privilege or in the language of the 5th amendment.” Extra Info Miranda appeald to the Supreme Court after he was convicted All defendants were convicted and all convictions except 1 were affirmed on appeal
Full transcript