Miranda vs. Arizona
A U.S. Government Power-point
By Spencer Fox
What were the circumstances of the court case?
What happened to cause it to be an issue
• Ernesto Arturo Mirandawas arrested based on
circumstantial evidence linking him to the kidnapping
and rape of an 18-year-old woman 10 days earlier
• During interrogation, Miranda signed a confession
stating he was guilty. However, prior to this, he was
not told his rights to a counsel, right to remain
silent, or the fact that this confession could be used
against him in trial.
What were the constitutional issues that were up for
debate in this case?
• Many viewed this situation as going against 5th
and 6th amendment rights.
• Warnings against self incrimination and a legal
counsel are guaranteed to be given to a
criminal held in custody under these
• This case directly violated these amendment
• The argument on Miranda’s side
was that the confession he signed
admitting to the rape and kidnap
of the 18 year old should be
dismissed due to the fact that
during the time it was signed
Miranda was not truly voluntarily
• The opposing side thought that
regardless of this, Miranda had
said that he had committed the
deed, and regardless of any
infractions, he had confessed.
What was the decision of the Court?
• The decision was that no confession could be
admitted into a legal case under the Fifth
Amendment self-incrimination clause and
Sixth Amendment right to an attorney unless a
suspect had been made aware of his/her
• This decision changed the way police and legal
procedures would carry out for the rest of
What was the effect of the decision
when it was made
• The effect of the decision is that the practice
of reading the Miranda rights during an arrest
has become an absolute necessity and is
practiced in a very diehard fashion. The
precedent absolutely stands today.
The Miranda Warning
• This was a direct result of the Miranda vs.
Arizona Supreme Court case.
• The Miranda Warning is a warning that is
required to be recited by police to criminals
that are in custody.
• The Miranda Warning was the method of
prevention used in order to make sure the
events of the Miranda vs. Arizona case were to
never happen again.
The Miranda Rights
• The Supreme courts statement on the creation of these
rights was “...The person in custody must, prior to
interrogation, be clearly informed that he or she has the
right to remain silent, and that anything the person says
will be used against that person in court; the person must
be clearly informed that he or she has the right to consult
with an attorney and to have that attorney present during
questioning, and that, if he or she is indigent, an attorney
will be provided at no cost to represent her or him.”
• You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can
and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the
right to speak to an attorney. If you cannot afford an
attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand
these rights as they have been read to you?
Other Miranda Rights Violations
• In 1997, in an incident in which a young boy
died in a trailer fire, Suspected fire starter
Patrice Seibert was woken in the hospital after
sustaining injuries from said fire, and was
interrogated until he cracked and gave a
• However, prior to him giving his confession, he
was not read his rights, thusly, this confession
was admitted in court.
• This case is considered an extension of the
decisions made in the Miranda vs. Arizona case.
• This case dealt with what would happen if a
suspect were to simply remain dormant when
given his Miranda rights, and actually stay silent
• The supreme court ruled that in order for this
protection to apply, the suspect must state that
he is actually relying on the right.