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 v. Arizona

No description
by

Drew Lambert

on 14 November 2012

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Miranda v. Arizona

Miranda
v. Arizona http://jjie.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Empty_prison_cell_af1a.jpg http://thebsreport.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/ernesto-miranda.jpg?w=500 http://www.anh-usa.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/supreme-court1.jpg http://www.azpbs.org/arizonastories/ppedetail.php?id=86 http://www.azpbs.org/arizonastories/ppedetail.php?id=86 http://accad.osu.edu/~sconroy/730/sconroy_assignment2/graphics/introom1.jpg Before the decision of the Miranda case, a confession in a trial was looked at as either "voluntary" or "involuntary/coerced." Although a cop may have used pressure and trickery during an interrogation, it could still be seen as voluntary if they, for example, had given the suspect a sandwich and a good night's sleep. If their interrogation methods were too severe or if the suspect was young, uneducated, or had low intelligence, the interrogation was seen as involuntary. Because the voluntariness test was so vague and unpredictable, many court justices searched for a more efficient approach. Miranda v. Arizona was the culmination of their searches. Background Background The Crime The Evidence The 1st Ruling The Supreme Court The Final Ruling The victim and other witnesses helped law enforcement connect a car to the case. Ernesto Miranda, the owner, was later arrested at his home for the crime. Miranda was put into a lineup with 3 other men. The victim wasn't sure, but thought Miranda could have been the attacker. Miranda then appealed to the Supreme Court. His case was reviewed in 1966. The Supreme Court ruled that Miranda's confession could not be used as evidence because the police didn't tell Miranda his 5th and 6th amendment rights. To avoid cases like Miranda's, the Supreme Court came up with statements that police had to say when arresting a suspect. They are known as "Miranda Rights". Miranda Rights explain that the suspect has the right to remain silent, anything they say can be used against them, and they have the rights to an attorney even if they can't afford one. On March 2, 1963, an eighteen-year-old woman was coming home from her job at a movie theater. It was about midnight and a man began following her in his car. She was then kidnapped, beat, and raped by the man. Miranda was taken to an interrogation room. He asked, "How did I do?" Police officer Cooley responded, "You failed." Miranda soon confessed to the crime. Although Miranda confessed, the case did not end there. There were multiple errors in the interrogation process. The police did not tell Miranda his right as a suspect. According to Miranda's lawyer, he was not aware of his right against self-incrimination (5th amendment) and his right to an attorney (6th amendment.) In addition, Miranda did not even have a 9th grade education and was known for mental instability. Miranda believed
that the police had unconstitutionally attained his confession. He wanted an appeal, but the court disagreed and he still faced all charges. Miranda later stated that the police threatened to throw a book at him and used violent interrogation tactics. The Court also stated that violent interrogation tactics can take away basic liberties and cause a false confession. Because Miranda was deprived of his constitutional rights and because his confession was the only evidence of the case, Miranda was not convicted by the Supreme Court. Later, with evidence other than his confession, Miranda was convicted and went to prison. Gribben, Mark. "MIRANDA VS ARIZONA: THE CRIME THAT CHANGED AMERICAN JUSTICE." MIRANDA VS ARIZONA: THE CRIME THAT CHANGED AMERICAN JUSTICE. Crime Library, n.d. Web. 16 July 2012. We agree with the Supreme Court's decision because Miranda's rights were violated and the only evidence was his confession. He was proven to be mentally instable and he did not know of his rights, so his confession is not good enough evidence to convict him. McBride, Alex. "Miranda v. Arizona 1966." PBS. Pbs.org, Dec. 2006. Web. 16 July 2012. McKnight, Jean. "Miranda v. Arizona." The Sixties in America. Salem Press, n.d. Web. 15 July 2012. The final vote was 5-4. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote the majority opinion stating that Miranda's rights were violated and that violent interrogation tactics were a factor. Justice Tom Clark wrote an opinion stating that Justice Warren went too far too fast. He believed that there should have been more proof that Miranda was not aware of his rights. Hall, Kermit. The Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions. New York: Oxford UP, 1999. Print. Byron White and John Marshall both wrote dissenting opinions stating that nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the police cannot use trickery in their interrogation tactics. White said that he did not want to be involved in letting a criminal go free to commit a crime again. SOURCES In addition, the victim changed her story multiple times. She was also very evasive about answering questions asked by police. In addition, her brother-in-law told investigators that the victim was emotionally unstable and had the intelligence of a 12 or 13 year old. His defense attorney also stated that the confession was coerced and could not be used as evidence. The defense also argued that Miranda should have been told that he could have a lawyer before questioning. The attacker was said to be a 27 or 28-year-old Hispanic man with a mustache, a little less than six feet tall, weighing 175 pounds. The rapist was further described as being of slender build, medium complexion, with black, short curly hair. He was wearing denim jeans and a white shirt, and wore dark-rimmed glasses.
Full transcript