what is miranda vs arizona
Miranda v. Arizona was a significant Supreme Court case that ruled that a defendant's statements to authorities are inadmissible in court unless the defendant has been informed of their right to have an attorney present during questioning and an understanding that anything they say will be held against them.
Calculate the price of your order
In addition, for a statement to be admissible, the individual must understand their rights and waive them voluntarily. On March 2,Patricia McGee not her real name was kidnapped and raped while walking home after work in Phoenix, Arizona. She accused Ernesto Miranda of whxt crime after picking him out of a lineup. He was arrested and taken to an interrogation room where after three hours he signed a written confession to the crimes. The paper on which he wrote his confession stated that the information was given voluntarily and that he understood his rights.
However, no specific rights were listed on the paper.
Navigation menu
Miranda was found guilty in an Arizona court based largely on the written confession. He was sentenced to 20 to 30 years for both crimes to be served concurrently. However, his attorney felt that his confession should not be admissible due to the fact that he was not warned of his right to have an attorney represent him or that his statement could be used against him.
Therefore, he appealed the case for Miranda. The Arizona State Supreme Court did not agree that the confession had been coerced, and therefore upheld the conviction. From there, his attorneys, with the assistance of the American Civil Liberties Union, appealed to the U. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court actually decided four different cases that all had similar circumstances when they ruled on Miranda.
At first, the attorneys for Miranda attempted to argue that his rights had been violated as he had not been given an attorney during the confession, citing the Sixth Amendment. However, the Court focused on the rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment including that of protection against self-incrimination.
Having doubts about how to write your paper correctly?
He was retried for the crimes of rape and kidnapping without the written evidence and found guilty a second time. The Supreme Court decision in Mapp v. Ohio was quite controversial. Opponents argued that advising criminals of their rights would hamper police investigations and cause more criminals to walk free. In fact, Congress passed a cs in that provided the ability for courts to examine confessions on a what is miranda vs arizona basis to decide whether they should be allowed.
Click main result of Miranda v. Arizona was the creation of the " Miranda Rights.
Share Flipboard Email. Issues The U. Government U. Foreign Policy U. Liberal Politics U. Martin Kelly. History Expert.]
You are not right. I suggest it to discuss. Write to me in PM.