Summary: The Case Of Miranda V. Arizona

The case of Miranda v. Arizona was on trial in Arizona’s Maricopa County Superior

Court where the defendant, Ernesto Miranda, was convicted of rape and kidnaping. After appealing his conviction to the Supreme Court of Arizona, which affirmed the trail court conviction finding that Miranda’s constitutional rights had not been violated, Miranda than petitioned for the case to be heard by the United States Supreme Court. The United States

Supreme Court accepted to hear the case during their spring term of 1966. On February 28,

March 1 and March 2, 1966, oral arguments for the case were heard; finally issuing its decision on June 13, 1966.

In March 1963, the rape and kidnapping of a young woman was reported to the Phoenix

Police Department. Based

He was then taken to a ‘‘special interrogation room’’ and questioned by detectives for two hours. At no point during the interrogation was Miranda informed of his right to remain silent or have an attorney present during questioning. Miranda eventually told the detectives that he had indeed raped the woman. The detectives than had Miranda write out and sign a statement of confessing his involvement. At the top of the statement was a typed disclaimer stating that the confession was made with Miranda’s full knowledge of his legal rights and his understanding that any statement made may be used against him and that he had knowingly given up or waived those rights. At trail, over the objections of Miranda’s defense attorney, prosecutor’s used both the written statement and police testimony of Miranda’s oral confession to secure a guilty verdict from the jury. Miranda was sentenced to 20 to 30 years of prison for each charge.

The main legal issue in the case was if Miranda’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination were violated when Phoenix detectives, after his arrest but prior to interrogation, failed to inform his of his rights; The right to remain silent, to consult and

Chief Justice Warren declared that the burden is upon the State to demonstrate that

‘‘procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination’’ are followed. ‘‘Interrogation while being unable to communicate with the rest of the world is at odds with one of our Nation’s most cherished principles – that the individual may not be compelled to incriminate himself.’’ Ernesto Miranda was not apprised of his right to consult an attorney which conflicts the ‘‘fundamental fairness’’ standards the Court has established. Judicial fairness influenced the judge’s decision. The prestige built up by the American justice system on how fairness and equality play a large part on how court hearings are done. In the case of Miranda, having the defendant being subjugated to punishment when they weren’t given vital information like their rights, indeed unjust.

The Miranda rights following the Supreme Court decision Miranda v. Arizona in 1966 are stated my police when arrested suspects and when suspects are being questioned. This prevents information being wrongfully coerced from suspects and entitles suspects to an attorney. Whether a suspect or defendant knows their Miranda rights or not could mean