By: Michaela Hull and Elena Butler Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 By: Michaela Hull and Elena Butler

Miranda v. Arizona The police did not inform Ernesto Miranda of his rights prior to being arrested. He admitted to everything while being recorded and he did not have anybody to represent himself. He self incriminated himself without knowing it because they did not tell him his rights. It went against the 5th amendment.

Miranda v. Arizona The case involves Ernesto Miranda and the Supreme Court

Miranda v. Arizona The Miranda v. Arizona case took place in Phoenix, Arizona in 1966

Miranda v. Arizona Ernesto Miranda kidnapped and raped an 18 year old woman. They brought him in and interrogated him for 2 hours when he confessed. However, he was not aware of his rights because they were not read aloud. He went to prison in Arizona and the American Civil Liberties Union said his confession was false and coerced. He was retried but still convicted in 1966. Everybody must be read of their rights when they get arrested due to this case.

Miranda v. Arizona The case went to trial in the Arizona state court and there, he was sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison before the case went to supreme court.

Miranda v. Arizona During this time in history (1966), there were racial tensions, and Miranda was an immigrant from Mexico. However, race did not take part in this case, but Miranda’s lack of knowledge of his 5th amendment rights brought this case to supreme court.

Miranda v. Arizona The Supreme Court ruled that before questioned by police, detained criminal suspects must be informed about their constitutional right against self- incrimination and their right to an attorney

Miranda v. Arizona In the Constitution, the 5th and 6th amendment go along with the Miranda Rights. The 5th amendment protects defendants from being compelled to become witnesses against themselves. While the 6th amendment guarantees the rights of criminal defendants including the right to a lawyer.

Miranda v. Arizona Opposing viewpoints: Justice White argued that this ruling would harm the criminal process by destroying credibility of confessions, and Justice Clark argued that it was an unnecessarily strict enforcement of the 5th amendment that can interfere with police duties.

Miranda v. Arizona I feel their decision was right as to making police read the Miranda Rights when getting arrested so that people do not say something that can be used in court and against them. This can also make it fair for immigrants who did not learn their rights as thoroughly as American citizens so they are not taken advantage of in court.

Miranda v. Arizona California v. Stewart There was a chain of robberies occurring and they arrested Stewart along with his wife, and three people who were visiting him at the time. He was placed in a cell and interrogated nine different times. However on the ninth time, he admitted to robbing the deceased woman. They had then let the four other people go and he was convicted of first degree murder and robbery and he was sentenced to death. Stewart however was never advised of his right to remain silent and his right to a council. Many times police officers aware suspects of their rights causing them to say what they did without a right to stay silent and the right to an attorney. Miranda v. Arizona