Miranda V Arizona

312 Words2 Pages
Miranda V Arizona I. Facts: The Supreme Court consolidated four different cases that all had issues with the admissibility of evidence; specifically evidence obtained during police interrogations. Ernesto Miranda the first defendant was arrested for kidnapping and rape, he was an immigrant and the officers did not notify him of his rights. Miranda signed a confession after only two hours of interrogation. The confession also came with a statement that he was told of his rights. The three other defendants were arrested on robbery charges, they too confessed but were never told their Fifth Amendment rights. The last defendant was arrested as well his family although there was no evidence of them being involved with the crimes. The last three defendants were held for hours before confessing to their crimes. II. Issues: The issues in this case is whether or not the government is required to tell the arrested defendants of their Fifth Amendment constitutional rights against self- incrimination before they interrogate the defendants? III. Holding: Yes the government needs to notify each and every arrested individual of his or her Fifth Amendment constitutional rights. What specifically needs to be told to them is: their right to remain silent, anything they say could be used against them in court, right to counsel, right to have counsel appointed to them. If these things are not said anything said by the arrestee during the interrogation will not stand in court. IV. Reasons: Each arrestee should be aware of their rights because without knowing them officials can bully the defendants into self criminalizing themselves. If they know their rights and have an attorney present they are able to tell their story without fear, and effectively. V. Rule of Law: Government officials have a duty to inform individuals of their Fifth Amendment constitutional rights after an

More about Miranda V Arizona

Open Document