Docstoc

Miranda v. Arizona - Westport Public Schools Home

Document Sample
Miranda v. Arizona - Westport Public Schools Home Powered By Docstoc
					  Miranda vs. Arizona
        (1966)


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
  amendments.
• This case directly violated these amendment
  rights.
                       Arguments
• 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
  signed.
• 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
  rights.
• This decision changed the way police and legal
  procedures would carry out for the rest of
  time.
  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
  confession
• However, prior to him giving his confession, he
  was not read his rights, thusly, this confession
  was admitted in court.
          Berghuisv. Thompkins
• 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
  entirely.
• The supreme court ruled that in order for this
  protection to apply, the suspect must state that
  he is actually relying on the right.
             WORKS CITED
• http://americangovernment.abc-
  clio.com/Search/Display/209668?terms=Mira
  nda+v.+Arizona+(1966)
• http://www.usconstitution.net/miranda.html
• http://celebgalz.com/wp-
  content/uploads/2010/08/108.jpg
• http://www.chiefsupply.com/images/products
  /600/MWC.jpg

				
DOCUMENT INFO