Case Brief 9.3 - his constitutional rights? Holding: No...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Michael Knutson (11040656) Lindsey 26 March 2010 Business Law 215 Case Brief 9.3: Miranda v. Arizona Background: Ernesto Miranda was arrested for the kidnaping and rape of an eighteen-year old woman. He was taken to a police station and interrogated. The result of the interrogation was a signed confession written by Miranda. Miranda was never advised he had the right to remain silent or to have a lawyer present during the interrogation. He was convicted to 20 to 30 years in prison. Miranda appealed his case to the supreme court of Arizona where he was found guilty again, until his case was brought to the United States Supreme Court. Issue: Can Miranda be convicted on the basis of his confession when he was never informed of
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: his constitutional rights? Holding: No Reasoning: Most individuals dont know all of their constitutional rights, and therefore, must be informed prior to interrogation and trial, that they have the right to remain silent, as well as an attourney. Also they must be told that if they choose to forgo the right to remain silent, anything they say can and will be used against them in court. Finally, if they cannot afford a lawyer, they will be appointed one. These laws are to protect US citizens from being forced to comply with the law against their will....
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online