Miranda+v+Arizona+(1966)

Sydney Brooks Makayla Wheatley Annah Cecil

1.) Ernesto Miranda, a poor Mexican living in Phoenix, Arizona, was arrested after crime victim identified him in a police line up. Miranda was charged with rape and kidnapping. When interrogating him, the police questioning him did not inform him of his 5th amendment right against self- incrimination, or of his 6th amendment right of the right to an attorney. After interrogation, Miranda confessed to the crimes which he was charged in a written statement. His written statement also included acknowledgment that he was aware of his right against self- incrimination. The prosecution used his confession to convict him, and he was sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison on each count. Miranda's defense attorney argued to the supreme court that his confession should have been excluded from trial because Miranda was not informed of his rights. However, the prosecution argued that since Miranda had been convicted of a previous crime that he was already aware of his rights. The Arizona Supreme Court denied the appeal and continued with his conviction.

2.) Because Miranda wasn't aware of his rights the court overturned the conviction. The Supreme Court decided that he wasn't given the awareness of his rights that the constitution gives us. However, Miranda was put on trial again, this time without his confession. He was convicted again with the same sentence.

3.) Following the decision, the nation's police departments were required to inform arrested persons of their rights, called the Miranda Rights. Since the case, everyone arrested for a crime is now read their Miranda Rights before being arrested so each person is aware of the rights the constitution has made for them.

More information on the Miranda Vs. Arizona case []