Miranda v. Arizona (1966) U.S. Supreme Court Case Study Project By: Vanessa King and Maggie Fallon

Essential Question Does the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination extend the police interrogation of a suspect?

Background Summary Ernesto Miranda was a Mexican immigrant from Phoenix, Arizona. Miranda “versed” the Arizona Supreme Court. Ernesto Miranda confessed to kidnapping and sexually assaulting a woman. Miranda made an appeal that he had not known his rights. However, the Arizona Supreme Court concluded that Miranda should have known his rights and that he was guilty.

Constitutional principles related to the case Amendment 5: Due process, no double jeopardy, no self- incrimination, eminent domain. Amendment 6: Speedy and public trial by the jury, right to a lawyer.

Answer to Essential Question and reason for decision They sided with Miranda with a 5-4 vote. They concluded that Miranda was guilty and that he should had known his rights.

Impact of case on society It taught society about their rights. It caused the law enforcement officials to make sure they told the accused their rights.

Why is this case considered a landmark? This case is considered a landmark because it taught society and most law enforcement officials that they should tell the accused their rights before things get complicated like the Miranda v. Arizona case. This case also caused them to call your rights the Miranda rights. Why is this case considered a landmark?

Bibliography mapsopensource.com oyez.org streetlaw.org prezi.com todayifoundout.com linkedin.com quimbee.com i.ytimg.com slideplayer.com weclipart.com decalserpent.com moziru.com bhs-citizenship.com 5demension.se bgfa.co.uk