Miranda Vs Arizona Case Study

John Rea
Government
Mr. Burke
Period 1

The case at hand is Miranda v. Arizona. In this case, the Phoenix police department arrested a man named Ernesto Miranda based on circumstantial evidence that connected him to the kidnap and rape of an 18-year-old girl 10 days earlier, on March 13, 1963. The police questioned him for two hours until he confessed to the crime. He signed a confession saying, "I do hereby swear that I make this statement voluntarily and of my own free will, with no threats, coercion, or promises of immunity, and with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me." During trial, the defense attorney, Alvin Moore, argued that the written statement was not valid in court because Miranda was never told of his right to counsel, he was not advised of his right to remain silent, and was unaware that his statements could be used against him in a court of law. Moore's objection was overruled and because of the evidence and written confession, Miranda was sentenced to 20-30 years of imprisonment on each charge. Moore filed Miranda's case to the Arizona Supreme Court claiming that Miranda's confession was not completely voluntary. The written confession was admitted in the Arizona

Arizona, Miranda was the plaintiff. The arguments for him were that at the time he was arrested and interrogated, he was not notified that he has the right to remain silent and that anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law, and that he had the right to have an attorney present and he would be appointed one if he could not afford one. Essentially, the plaintiff wanted to make sure everyone will always be informed of his or her Fifth Amendment rights. The defendant in this case, the state of Arizona, argued that Miranda still willingly offered his confession to the police, fully aware of his rights due to prior criminal issues he had