Miranda v. Arizona

Better Essays
Miranda VS Arizona In 1966, American police procedure was changed by what is known today as the Miranda Rights. In 1963, Ernesto Miranda, a twenty three year old Hispanic American with an eighth grade education was arrested for kidnap and rape. (Paddock) He was identified by the victim of the crime in a police lineup. After he was identified, he was taken into police interrogation for two hours. When he was arrested, he was not informed of his Fifth Amendment right to not incriminate himself. He was also not informed of his Sixth Amendment right to have the assistance of an attorney. In the first part of his interrogation, Miranda denied having any involvement in the crime, but after two hours he confessed to the crime in writing. (Street Law) Miranda went to Arizona local court where it was decided that he would be sentenced to twenty to thirty years in jail. (Gitlin) In jail, Miranda wrote a letter to the Supreme Court and made a request to have a retrial. The court agreed that Miranda should have a retrial without using the evidence collected when Miranda was unaware of his rights. Despite having a retrial, the court came across another important issue to be addressed, Miranda’s previous arrest. Miranda had been arrested before so the court argued the question of whether or not Miranda should have known his rights from when he was read his rights during his past arrest. Miranda argued that his rights were violated because he admitted to the crime without knowing his rights, which should have been said to him when he was arrested. He claimed that the police had obtained his confession unconstitutionally. (Gitlin) He also mentioned that the police admitted to not telling him his rights. He reminded the Supreme Court that the... ... middle of paper ... ...e way that a specific Justice on the case had to say. "Street Law, Inc.." Home. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Apr. 2014. . This source explains the rights that should be told to a suspect that is arrested, the fifth and Sixth Amendments. It also explains how Miranda was identified as the criminal and what happened in the interrogation room. This source helped me understand the specific amendments that apply to Miranda Rights. "Latest Stories from ISCOTUSnow." The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Apr. 2014. . This source explained the final decision of the case which was five to four. Also, it explains what the Miranda Rights include after case was ruled that Miranda Rights are required to be told to the accused. The source helped me understand the effect the case had after the final ruling.
Get Access