Miranda V. Arizona Case Study

On June 13, 1966, the Supreme Court took up a case named Miranda v. Arizona – a case based off of Ernesto Miranda. After three different cases similar to Miranda a decision by the Warren court: the government must notify arrested individuals their Fifth Amendment constitutional rights. This regards what is known today as the Miranda Rights. In order to understand how the Miranda Rights came to be, one must look at how the Supreme Court chooses which cases to pick, how the Fifth Amendment applies, and understanding the three previous court cases; as previously mentioned. Since it is the Supreme Court who chooses which case they would like to present, one must understand how the system works. The main function of the Supreme Court is to answer

New York. Vignera was a man charged with robbery, but was not formally arrested until he had orally admitted to the robbery. The defendant was brought in for questioning where an assistant district attorney had replaced the hearing reporter, who would normally write down everything asked and answered. With both the oral confession and the oral questioning written down by a district attorney, Vignera was convicted without the knowledge of his rights to remain silent, his rights to a attorney, and he so wishes for one, but cannot afford one, a lawyer will be provided for him (Miranda v. Arizona,

Arizona and Vignera v. New York, was the Westover v. United States. Westover was also charged with two robberies in Kansas City and was also wanted by the FBI in California for some previous felony he had committed. According to the United States Courts, Westover was interrogated that night of the arrested and then handed over to the local police for another interrogation. After being in questioning twice in less than a day, the defendant was then interrogated again by the FBI. Finally, Westover had signed confession papers of the crimes he has committed, so when brought to trial, he was quickly convicted for his signed confessions were used for evidence (Facts and Case Summary - Miranda v. Arizona). To continue that Westover was not aware of his rights, Leagle goes more into depth about the arrest: “ …appellant was arrested in Kansas City, Missouri…by two Kansas City police men, on charges of robberies…also because of a report from the Kansas City office of Federal Bureau of Investigation that the appellant was wanted on felony…he was first questioned by the Kansas City policemen he gave a false name, but later admitted his identity. He was searched, at the time of the arrest, and the automobile [he was entering] was search” (Westover v. United States). This proving the fact that Westover was immediately question and searched, before the reading of his