Paragraph #1:Facts of the Case The case originally happened because a man wasn’t told his rights when he was arrested. This man was named Ernesto Miranda and he was arrested and convicted of rape. When Miranda was arrested he never got any notification of his rights like the right to remain silent and a lawyer may be used against you. Without him knowing his rights this violated the 5th amendment of his rights. He was fiercely interrogated by the police for 2 hours and confessed to the crime. He was put on trial and convicted guilty and sentenced to 11 years. Until his lawyers found out and revolted towards the court. The Justices did a vote and 5-4 for miranda and they tweaked the 5th amendment. This led to a outcome of fixing …show more content…
The Respondent’s argued that this doesn't matter. Paragraph #4:Opinion of the court Earl Warren was the Justice that authorized the Majority opinion. Earl Warren believed that Miranda was convicted and never was aware of his rights and was not told and this violated his 5th amendment “Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination is available in all settings. Therefore, prosecution may not use statements arising from a custodial interrogation of a suspect unless certain procedural safeguards were in place.” (oyez). These Justices agreed with the majority opinion, Black, Douglas, Brennan, and Fortas. Justice Clark was the author of the dissenting opinion. Clark believed that The majority group was wrong and too strict on his 5th amendment rights. “Strict interpretation of The 5th Amendment states the police needs to fully execute their duties, The convict does not need to know his rights when convicted of a crime.” When a criminal is convicted of a crime they should be aware of their rights like a right to an Attorney. When Miranda was convicted the police didn’t inform him of his rights by