preview

Ernesto Miranda's Case Of Miranda Vs. Arizona

Better Essays
Miranda vs. Arizona Ernesto Miranda was born March 19, 1941 and died January 31st, 1976. He committed his first serious crime in eighth grade, and was convicted of felony burglary. He was sentenced to one year in reform school, in his case, Arizona State Industrial School for Boys. After being released from a separate sentence from the reform school, Miranda moved to Los Angeles. While in L.A. Ernesto was arrested for lack of supervision, violating curfew and being a “peeping tom”. He was in custody for forty-five days in the county detention home. Miranda enlisted in the United States Army at the age of approximately 19 on September 03, 1946. Ernesto was a private in the Philippine Scouts branch of the Philippine Scouts during World War II.…show more content…
After two hours of interrogation by the police, Miranda wrote a complete confession, admitting to the kidnapping and rape of an eighteen-year-old girl ten days earlier. Alvin Moore was assigned to represent Miranda at his trial which began June 20th, in front of Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Yale McFate. It was pointed out that Miranda had not been informed of his Fifth Amendment right to have an attorney present during police questioning. Despite that he had not been informed of his rights, Miranda was convicted, forcing him to appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court. The charges as well as the verdict remained the same. Miranda appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in June of 1965. Criminal Defense Attorney John Flynn agreed to represent Miranda in Alvin Moore’s stead. The Supreme Court agreed that the written confession was not acceptable evidence because of Ernesto’s ignorance of his Fifth Amendment rights, and the police’s failure to inform him of them. Then state of Arizona re-tried him without the confession but with Twila Hoffman’s testimony. He was still found guilty and was sentenced to twenty to thirty years in prison, but this case set precedence for all other cases of this…show more content…
The Supreme Court ruled that due to the coercive nature of the custodial interrogation by police, no confession could be admissible under the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination Clause and Sixth Amendment right to an attorney unless a suspect has been made aware to his rights and the suspect had then waived them
Get Access