Miranda V. Arizone

514 Words3 Pages
Case Brief Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966) Parties: Ernesto Miranda (Plaintiff) v. Arizona (Defendant) Facts: On March 13, 1963 Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and rape. At the Phoenix police station he was identified as the perpetrator by a witness. Mr. Miranda was taken into an interrogation room with two police officers and was questioned. At no time was Miranda advised he had the right to remain silent or have an attorney present. Several hours later the police officers came out of the room with a written and signed confession, which contained a paragraph that the confession was made voluntarily with full knowledge of legal rights. One officer testified this paragraph was read to the defendant but only after the defendant had confessed orally to the crimes he was being interrogated for. The confession was admitted into court as evidence even though the defense objected. Miranda was found guilty and sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison. Prior Proceedings: Mr. Miranda was found guilty in the Superior Court and sentenced to 20-30 years for each crime and sent to prison. Mr. Miranda appealed this conviction in the Arizona Supreme Court and they affirmed the conviction stating Mr. Miranda’s constitutional rights were not violated. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed the decision. Issues Presented or Questions of Law: When a person is arrested or questioned in relation to a crime, is it a requirement for law enforcement to explain the 5th and 6th Amendment rights to the suspect. Arguments or Objectives of the Parties: Because of the pressures related to interrogations, it’s imperative that the suspect have his/her constitutional rights clearly explained to them prior to any questioning. Holding/Rule of Law: When a person is interrogated they have the right to clearly understand

More about Miranda V. Arizone

Open Document