Christina Ascolillo

 Who was involved: Ernesto Miranda and the State of Arizona.  When:  Where: Phoenix, Arizona  Why: Arrested and charged with rape, kidnapping, and robbery.

 Miranda was uneducated (didn’t have beyond a 9 th grade education) and did not know his rights to remain silent and to have a lawyer.  Confessed during a 2 hour interrogation to police without a lawyer.  Prosecutions whole case was based on the confession.

 Miranda found Guilty of rape and kidnapping  Sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison  Appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court the decision but the conviction was upheld and instead appealed to Supreme Court in ◦ (his case was review along with 3 other cases Vignera v. New York, Westover v. United States, and California v. Stewart)

 Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated because he was not aware of his rights and he was not told his rights.  Due Process did not occur, police did not take the proper steps to inform him.  Fifth Amendment – can not self incriminate  Sixth Amendment – right to an attorney  Was not given any of these rights during his trial so he claimed that he was charged unfairly.

 Supreme Court made a Writ of Certiorari, agreed to hear the appeal of the lower court.  Arguments: ◦ Defense: Did not know and was not aware of his constitutional rights (5 th and 6 th amendments) so he was not given a fair trail. And the police did not take the proper steps to inform him. ◦ Prosecution: He confessed to his crimes and when confessing he should have known that they could use his confession as evidence to convict him in court.

 A previous case, Brown v. Mississippi, set the precedent that an individual cannot be force to confess.  A previous case, Gideon v. Wainwright, set the precedent that a person convicted of a felony has a right to a Lawyer even if they cannot afford one.  Judicial Conference,consisting of Chief Justice Earl Warren, had to decide if the constitutional rights were violated

 The Oral Argument of the defense was that Miranda was denied his constitutional rights and Due Process did not occur so there was a legal issue with his conviction.  The Opinion of the Court was that Miranda’s Constitutional rights were violated because of a lack of due process there for he cannot be ensured a fair trail and cannot be convicted.  The new precedent created was the reading of the “Miranda Rights” at the time of arrest and booking to ensure due process.