Legal Brief (About 2 pages)
Case Name:
Case Number:
If you like you can copy/paste this for your notes:
“Quotation”
In Text Citation:
Works Cited citation
Why this is important/Why I want to use it:
Paragraph #1: Facts of the case
Ernesto Miranda was born in March (1940) in Mesa, Arizona, he skipped class, often went to a
prison for teens after burgering, then later he went to California to join the army and start a new
life. On “March 2, 1963”, he pushed an 18 year old woman into the backseat of his car. He drove
her for 20 minutes, then he sexually assaulted her and robbed his victim as he did with 3 others.
He drove 20 blocks from her house and let her free. She ran home where her sister found her and
called the police.
…show more content…
Later he got 20 to 30 years in prison for assaulting and armed robbery. Later his
lawyer appealed to the United States Supreme Court of Arizona asking if he was given the rights
while being arrested. On June 13, 1966 their appeal was accepted and the court agreed on hearing
him because as it turns out he was interrogated for 2 hours without knowing that he has the right
to remain silent (5th Amendment) (United States Courts, 2017), and the right for a lawyer (6th
Amendment). “Miranda v. Arizona” was called that because the police made a mistake and it
was the police of Arizona which made it go farther to the Supreme Court which is bigger that's
why the state counts. (United States Courts, 2014).This is why the case began.
Paragraph #2: The Law and Legal Questions
The Fifth Amendment is “No person told you held To answer for a capital, or otherwise Infamous
crime”. It means that no person can be forced to speak whatsoever. When Miranda was arrested
the police were supposed to inform him about his two rights (Right to keep quiet and write for a
lawyer) (United States Courts, 2017) he didn't have a choice and he was asked questions for 2
hours. He wrote his confession and three women that he assaulted gave the majority
…show more content…
(n.d.-b). {{Meta.siteName}}. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1965/759#:~:text=majority%20opinion%20by%20Earl%20Warren
Google Drive: Sign-in. (n.d.). Accounts.google.com. Retrieved January 20, 2023, from https://drive.google.com/file/d/16QNlgiwMeKIoD6viO74z2gVF-x64l_iu/view
History.com Editors. (2009, November 9). Miranda Rights. HISTORY. https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/miranda-rights mcbride. (2005). The Supreme Court . Expanding Civil Rights . Landmark Cases . Miranda v. Arizona (1966) | PBS. Thirteen.org. https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_miranda.html
Public Reaction. (n.d.). Miranda v. Arizona: Rebalancing Rights and Responsibilities. Retrieved January 23, 2023, from http://76307797.weebly.com/public-reaction.html#:~:text=The%20sudden%20introduction%20of%20Miranda
United States Courts. (2014). Facts and Case Summary - Miranda v. Arizona. United States Courts. https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-miranda-v-arizona
United States Courts. (2017). United States Courts.
When the case went to trial, the confession was used as support, he was then sentenced to about 25 years in prison. His lawyer took this case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided on June 13, 1966 and ruled 5-4 in favor of Miranda. This
The Miranda v. Arizona Case of 1966 The Miranda v. Arizona case was a Supreme court case that was caused by an arrest that happened on March 13th, 1963. A man by the name of Ernesto Miranda was arrested in his home for sexual assault and kidnapping and brought into the police station for questioning. The interrogation went on for two hours when finally, police got a written confession by Miranda that he did these crimes. After police got his confession, it was later realized that Miranda wrote this confession without being informed of the right to have an attorney present while being questioned. It was ruled that Ernesto was guilty of the crimes and an appeal by the Supreme Court concluded that his rights were not violated because he did not
Due to the fact of not being read his rights the Fifth and Sixth Amendment was created. Since the Miranda V. Arizona case has been adopted the way U.S. government has helped mold the nation’s justice system by introducing the Fifth and Sixth Amendment. In March of 1963 in Phoenix, Arizona, a resident by the name of Ernesto Miranda sexually assaulted, kidnapped, and robbed an eighteen year old woman as she was on her way home from her usual bus stop. Just days after the incident, the victim reported the events which unfolded that night to the Phoenix police department.
“Miranda written confession was admitted into evidence at trial despite the objection of the defense attorney and the fact that the police officers admitted that they had not advised Miranda of his right to have an attorney present during the interrogation. The jury found Miranda guilty ("Facts and Case Summary - Miranda v. Arizona," n.d.). Miranda v. Arizona: After Miranda's conviction was revoked by the Supreme Court, the State of Arizona retried him. At the second trial, Miranda's admission was not brought into evidence. Miranda was indeed indicted and condemned to 20-30 years in jail.
Pete Hernandez had been tried in Jackson County, Texas. Local attorneys Gus Garcia caught wind of Pete’s unfair, and frankly unconstitutional, ruling and decided to take the case into his own hands for an appell. Gus Garcia saw this case as an opportunity to extend the constitutional rights of Mexican Americans. Garcia teamed up with other brilliant attorneys and “they challenged the state’s systematic exclusion of persons of Mexican origin from all types of jury duty. ”(1)
Anyone who has been arrested before should know their rights therefore no matter what that person had done they are required to read you your rights as you are arrested. But who created the Miranda rights? The Miranda rights were first created by the Supreme Court after a man named Ernesto Miranda was convicted of his crime without his rights read to him. This case Ernesto, he was convicted of kidnapping and raping an eighteen year old ill woman. I disagree with this because of his past crimes along with his new crimes.
Arizona. In his article, Stern was able to clearly articulate his claims and provide supporting evidence for his arguments. One of the reasons Stern’s claim was effective and clear was his use of the organization. In his introduction, he quickly identifies the main topic of his article regarding the direct attack of the Supreme Court and Justice Sam Alito made Miranda rights. Following the introduction, the author provided the necessary context and background information the reader needs to fully understand his claims.
Retrieved January 14, 2023, from https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=mscj_etd Miranda v. Arizona. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved January 14, 2023, from
Arizona are still seen today and still have a large impact on every police interrogation carried through the entire country. The enumerated pieces of case law implemented due to Miranda vs. Arizona has created much better protections for suspects in custody and holds the state to their high burden of proof in the fairest way possible. By protecting the rights of the people, the courts can guarantee the legitimacy of their trials. The impact that Miranda v. Arizona had on the United States legal system can be perceived in nearly every case carried out since. This also spawned a wave of rights for individuals.
The legal case of Arizona v. Miranda, which took place in 1966, was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court that had a profound impact on criminal procedure in the country. The case involved Ernesto Miranda, a man who had been arrested and charged with kidnapping and rape in Phoenix, Arizona. The overall issue of the case was the admissibility of the confession that Miranda had made to the police during his interrogation, which had been obtained without informing him of his constitutional rights. The court ultimately ruled that Miranda's confession could not be used as evidence against him, as the police had violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. This decision led to the creation of what today is known
A significant ruling that established the constitutional rights of criminal defendants was Miranda v. Arizona. The criminal law and procedure in the United States have been significantly impacted by this case. This event occurred in Phoenix, Arizona in 1996 and lasted from February 28 to June 13, 1966. This lawsuit was brought before the Arizona State Superior Court. Arizona is the defendant in this lawsuit, and Miranda is the plaintiff.
The problem arose when the police officers said they had not advised Miranda of his right to an attorney. Miranda’s lawyer was concerned that his Sixth Amendment Right had been violated. This case was noticed by the ACLU and was taken to the Supreme Court. This case raised issues within the Supreme Court on the rights of Criminal Defendants.
Case Brief Case: Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Facts: The Miranda warning, which informs criminal suspects of their rights to remain silent and to an attorney while they are in police custody or being questioned in a detention facility, was created by the landmark Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona (1966). It was brought by Ernesto Miranda, who was detained under the charges of rape, kidnapping and robbery. He wasn't told of his right to an attorney or the right to remain silent before being questioned by the police, so Miranda admitted to the crimes while being interviewed. The confession was admitted into evidence during the trial, and Miranda was found guilty. Procedural History: After Miranda was convicted, he appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court who reaffirmed his rights had not been violated.
2016 marks the nation’s fiftieth anniversary of the Miranda rights or known as the Miranda warning. The Miranda rights made a monumental impact in our country. The Miranda Rights gives suspects their acknowledgement of their rights while being taken into custody. The rights are the right to remain silent and the right to attorney. One of the rights is the right to remain silent.
Not many people think that the Miranda Rights are important to people's everyday lives but it does. Even if people do not realize it the Miranda Rights do apply to our everyday lives The Miranda Rights are the right people must have read to them when they are being arrested or questioned by police or any authority if they are not read to them the authority can get in trouble for breaking a rule in their police academy or if it is bad enough they could get fired from the police force where they work