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

David Baroody

on 18 February 2011

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Miranda v. Arizona

Ernesto Miranda Born March 9, 1941 – January 31, 1976
Ernesto was a poor Mexican immigrant.
Ernesto moved to Phoneix in the 60's.
In 1963 Ernesto kidnapped, robbed, and raped a young woman in Phoneix, Arizona.
Ernesto was later identifed by the woman. Crime/Charges/Interrogation Once Ernesto was identifed he was arrested and charged with the crime.
Ernesto was then questioned by the police for two hours.
Later in a hand-written letter, he confessed that he had commited the crimes. What The Police Did Not Inform Him The police officers who had questioned Miranda did not inform him of the rights he had under the United States Constitution before the interrogation. Even Though When Miranda was questioned he was well aware of his rights. But because they had never told him his rights he says that his confession should of never counted in the case. The small court ruled in favor of Miranda. But Arizona appealed and it went to The Arizona Supreme Court. Amendment Five Amendment Six States that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."
(The right against self-incrimination) States that, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."
(The right to an attorney) All Comes Down To This Did this meet constitutional standards for protection of the privilege against self-incrimination and the right to have an attorney present ? The Supreme Court's Desicion In a 5-4 opinion, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Miranda.
Saying that, "Defendants arrested under state law must be informed of their constitutional rights against self-incrimination and to representation by an attorney before being interrogated when in police custody."
(Police must ensure that defendants are aware of their rights before they are interrogated).

One, "You have the right to remain silent."
Two, "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law."
Three,"You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning."
Four, "If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense."
Five, "Do you understand?" What The Police Must Inform Suspects What Was Argued A man by the name of Justice Harlan argued the desicion saying that it would be, "reducing the number of confessions police would be able to obtain." And also said "Too great to call the new rules anything but a hazardous experimentation.” Saying that crimes in todays society are to great to have these experiments in the way. But Miranda Thought... Well What if i didnt know my rights?
How would that be fare? Miranda v. Arizona Credits:

(1966) The Arizona Supreme Court In The Arizona Supreme Court they ruled in favor of Arizona, saying that his confession does count in the case. But Miranda then appealed the case. Now To The Supreme Court
Full transcript