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
- Spring '08
- Supreme Court of the United States, Miranda, Miranda v. Arizona, Ernesto Miranda