{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Case Brief #4 - affirmed that Miranda’s constitutional...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Zach Holland B Law 210 Case Brief #4 Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Courts of the United States, 1966 Facts: On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was at home when he was arrested for charges of kidnapping and rape. He was taken and questioned by two officers at a station in Phoenix, Arizona. Miranda wrote and signed a letter of confession that he handed over to the cops in the interrogation room. The paragraph at the top noted that the confession had been made voluntarily with no promises of immunity and “with no full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me.” At the same time Miranda was not advised that he had the right to remain silent or the right to have a lawyer present. The confession was used as evidence at the time of trial. Miranda was convicted and sentenced to twenty to thirty years. He appealed the decision. Miranda claimed that he had not been told his constitutional rights. The Supreme Court of Arizona
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: affirmed that Miranda’s constitutional rights had not been violated. The case was then moved to the United State Supreme Court. Issue: Were Ernesto Miranda’s rights violated, making his confession an invalid piece of evidence? Holding: Yes Reasoning: The Supreme Court of the United States held that his confession was not a valid piece of evidence and he could not be convicted of the crime solely on his confession. For the evidence to be valid the defendant must be informed of his specific constitutional rights prior to interrogation. If the defendant gives up his right to remain silent or the right to have proper representation then the governing body must demonstrate that the defendant waived his rights knowingly and intelligently. Only a part of Miranda’s rights were read to him, if the right to remain silent or the right to have proper presentation were read to him then the confession would have been valid in court....
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}