Miranda vs. Arizona Mrs. Pappafotopoulos Criminology & Law.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
STREET LAW: Miranda rights. ENTRY TASK Describe a time when someone wanted to talk about something or asked you about something you didn’t want to talk.
Advertisements

UNIT 4: Case Study. CONSTITUTIONAL TEXTS Article I, §8 Article II, § §1-3 Article III, §2 10th Amendment 4th, 5th, 6th Amendments 14th Amendment.
Presented by Tim, and Brendan. Arizona V. Miranda.
What would society look like if Eric Cartman was a police officer.
Unit I: Basic Principles of Government The Citizens.
The Investigation Phase Criminal Law and Procedure.
Vivek Barbhaiya and John Coriasco
Rights of the Accused th – Amendment Presumption of innocence Presumption of innocence Manzanar –one of our big failings Reasonable doubt Reasonable.
Do you know your civil rights?
By: Megan Devin Political Science December 4, 2014.
Miranda Rights 5th Amendment
Miranda v. Arizona.
BY: KATIE LOSINIECKI Miranda v. Arizona. Facts Ernesto Miranda was arrested in 1966 for the kidnapping and rape of an 18 year old woman After being interrogated.
Miranda v. Arizona Background Information - Phoenix, Arizona Ernesto Miranda arrested for kidnapping and rape -Interrogated for 2 hrs and.
1966 Chief Justice Warren’s handwritten notes about the case.
Miranda v. Arizona 1966 Read Miranda v. Arizona Parties Facts Issue.
Daniel Moody PD. 3 3/25/10 Miranda VS. Arizona 1966.
Objective 29L Analyze he rights of the accused as set forth in the 4 th,5 th,6 th,8 th, and 14 th Amendments, including but no limited to such cases as.
Miranda v. Arizona. Facts of the Case Police arrest Ernesto Miranda after the victim identifies him in lineup Police interrogate Miranda for two hours.
WHAT ARE YOUR RIGHTS?. 1. Grand Jury Indictment 2. Double Jeopardy 3. Protection Against Self Incrimination: “I PLEAD THE 5TH!” 4. Due Process of Law.
U.S. Constitutional Amendments 1-10
By: Holden Luce.  Mapp was accused of harboring a criminal involved in a bombing case.  The Officers confronted Mapp at her home and demanded that she.
{ Criminal Trial Procedure What happens when the police arrest a criminal suspect?
Rights When Arrested Objective 2.01 Recognize types of courts. Business Law.
Reem K, Madeline R, Miranda G, Emily K, & Britney F Government 4 th Hour Mr. Baker.
Arrests and Miranda. 2 Copyright and Terms of Service Copyright © Texas Education Agency, These materials are copyrighted © and trademarked ™ as.
Chapter 16.2 Criminal Cases.
An Overview of The Mapp, Gideon, Escobedo, and Miranda cases. Copyright 2010; The Nichols Law Firm, PLLC; By Atty. Brendon G. Basiga.
Chapter 1 The Pursuit of Justice Unit #1 Notes Packet.
Civil Liberties.  It is often said in the American justice system that it is better to allow ten guilty people to go free than to let one innocent person.
Miranda v Arizona Rights of the Accused. Citations 384 U.S. 436 (1966) oDocket # 759 oArgued February 28, 1966 o Decider June 13, 1966.
Call To Order Complete the following statement: You have the right to remain silent… And take out your homework!!!
Promptbook  During our last class, we discussed Marbury v. Madison and the idea of judicial review. This will be the topic of your essay assignment. 1.In.
Miranda vs. Arizona Right to Remain Silent.
Ashley Nine March 25, 2010 Period 7.  Poor living immigrant from Mexico living in Arizona.  He was charged with rape and kidnapping.  He was arrested.
Unit 4 Lesson 8: Miranda v. Arizona
Look over all the cases in the powerpoint and select only one of the cases. Open the Supreme Court Cases Reading file on Edmodo and read about the case.
Homework: Read/OL 14.3 for Monday FrontPage: Have 3 worksheets on your desk.
Arrests and Miranda.  Right to a grand jury  Protection against double jeopardy  Protection against self-incrimination  Right to due process  Custody.
CJ210: Interrogation: Purpose, Guidelines, Procedures, and the Miranda Ruling Unit 6 Seminar: Miranda, Interrogation, Interviews, and other.
Miranda v. Arizona GREYSON PETTUS PLS 211 MR. NOEL DECEMBER 2ND, 2015.
 Online Miranda quiz Online Miranda quiz. The constitutional implications of custodial interrogation.
Looking at Miranda Your Right to Remain Silent
Supreme Court Cases on Self Incrimination Sarah Claypoole.
By Colby Beighey Period 9. About Ernesto Miranda  Born on March 9, 1941  Grew up in Mesa, Arizona  His mother died  His father remarried  Did not.
Miranda V. Arizona By: Elise Kloppenburg. Facts of the Case Phoenix, Arizona 1963 Ernesto Miranda, 23 years old Arrested in his home Taken to the police.
Rights of the Accused. 1. Arrest With a warrant: a) based on probable cause b) warrant obtained from a judge presented with probable cause With a warrant:
Land Mark Supreme Court Cases Assignment
Supreme Court Cases of the 60s. Mapp v. Ohio, 1961 What happened? - illegal search of home found “obscene materials”. Mapp was convicted. Brought to court.
Miranda Warnings. Copyright © Texas Education Agency All rights reserved. Images and other multimedia content used with permission. Objective Students.
Miranda: Its Meaning and Application Chapter 6 Basic Criminal Procedures, 3/E by Edward E. Peoples PRENTICE HALL ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle.
 Dates: Debated: Feb. 28, March 1 and 2, 1966 Decided: June 13, 1966  Ruling: The prosecution could not use Miranda's confession as evidence in a criminal.
The Judicial System What Courts Do and Crime. Stages of Criminal Justice.
Unit 4 Seminar. Tell me what the Miranda warning is and what it means to you.
Entry Into the System Arrests and Miranda.
Miranda v. Arizona.
Miranda Rights.
Warm-up Has anyone tried to get you to confess to something you didn’t do? How did this happen? Have you ever confessed to something and then regretted.
Miranda Rights Reem K, Madeline R, Miranda G, Emily K, & Britney F
Defining the meaning of the terms in the warning
Tori Roupe and Haley Leavines
Aim: What are the protections offered by the case of Miranda vs
By Michael Cleary Period 8 10/3/13 College Business Law Mr. Como
Miranda Warnings.
Entry Into the System Arrests and Miranda.
Miranda v. Arizona 1966.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) The Warren Court.
Landmark Supreme Court Cases
by Marcos Cardona-7th period
Miranda v. Arizona Matthew & Noah.
Presentation transcript:

Miranda vs. Arizona Mrs. Pappafotopoulos Criminology & Law

Incident Details Phoenix, Arizona: a young 18 year old woman is raped at 11pm after she leaves work and is heading home. Phoenix, Arizona: a young 18 year old woman is raped at 11pm after she leaves work and is heading home. Her attacker drove past her, parked his car, got out and dragged her in. Her attacker drove past her, parked his car, got out and dragged her in. He bound her hands and feet and drove her to the desert where he then raped her. He bound her hands and feet and drove her to the desert where he then raped her. After the incident, he drove her back to the city about a half-mile from her home and dropped her off. After the incident, he drove her back to the city about a half-mile from her home and dropped her off. She went to police with family members to report the crime. She went to police with family members to report the crime.

Her Description Based on her statements, police began looking for a 27 or 28-year-old Mexican man with a mustache, a little less than six feet tall, weighing 175 pounds. Based on her statements, police began looking for a 27 or 28-year-old Mexican man with a mustache, a little less than six feet tall, weighing 175 pounds. The rapist was further described as being of slender build, medium complexion, with black, short curly hair. He was wearing denim jeans and white shirt, and wore dark-rimmed glasses. The rapist was further described as being of slender build, medium complexion, with black, short curly hair. He was wearing denim jeans and white shirt, and wore dark-rimmed glasses.

Her Story The woman gave conflicting stories about the course of the events following her abduction. The woman gave conflicting stories about the course of the events following her abduction. Her evasive answers, reluctance to talk and conflicting accounts of the rape would eventually prompt authorities to give her a lie detector test, which was inconclusive. Her evasive answers, reluctance to talk and conflicting accounts of the rape would eventually prompt authorities to give her a lie detector test, which was inconclusive. Even though Phoenix was above the norm in the number of reported rapes, police were about to file her case away as a possible fraudulent report because of her vague descriptions and evasive answers, when her family approached police with several pieces of information, one of which would break the case wide open. Even though Phoenix was above the norm in the number of reported rapes, police were about to file her case away as a possible fraudulent report because of her vague descriptions and evasive answers, when her family approached police with several pieces of information, one of which would break the case wide open.

A break in the case First, her brother-in-law told investigators, she was somewhat emotionally disabled, having a measured intelligence of a 12- or 13- year-old. First, her brother-in-law told investigators, she was somewhat emotionally disabled, having a measured intelligence of a 12- or 13- year-old. Second, she was so painfully shy that in the three years he had been in the family, she had spoken maybe three dozen words to him. Second, she was so painfully shy that in the three years he had been in the family, she had spoken maybe three dozen words to him. The third, and most important, revelation came from another brother-in-law who was picking her up from the bus stop because of her fear of walking home alone. They had noticed a green car frequenting the area of Marlette Street, and Patty had mentioned it looked like the one her attacker had driven. It was a Packard, the brother-in-law said, and on the second time he had seen it in the area, he noted the license plate: DLF-312. The third, and most important, revelation came from another brother-in-law who was picking her up from the bus stop because of her fear of walking home alone. They had noticed a green car frequenting the area of Marlette Street, and Patty had mentioned it looked like the one her attacker had driven. It was a Packard, the brother-in-law said, and on the second time he had seen it in the area, he noted the license plate: DLF-312. Police trace this vehicle to Ernest Miranda. Police trace this vehicle to Ernest Miranda.

Who Was Ernest Miranda? Had been in trouble from the time he was in grade school in Mesa, Arizona, shortly after his mother died and his father remarried. Had been in trouble from the time he was in grade school in Mesa, Arizona, shortly after his mother died and his father remarried. He was a chronic truant, and had his first criminal conviction when he was in 8th grade. The following year, Miranda was arrested and convicted of burglary, and sentenced to a year in reform school. He was a chronic truant, and had his first criminal conviction when he was in 8th grade. The following year, Miranda was arrested and convicted of burglary, and sentenced to a year in reform school. Years later, he was in and out of jail for numerous activities. Years later, he was in and out of jail for numerous activities.

What the police did… Police go to his house. At this point, Miranda was unsure of his status with authorities. “I didn’t know whether I had a choice,” he said later. “I got in the car and asked them what it was about. They said they couldn’t tell me anything.” In fact, he was under arrest, and would have had to accompany the officers to the station whether he wanted to or not. Police go to his house. At this point, Miranda was unsure of his status with authorities. “I didn’t know whether I had a choice,” he said later. “I got in the car and asked them what it was about. They said they couldn’t tell me anything.” In fact, he was under arrest, and would have had to accompany the officers to the station whether he wanted to or not. Cooley and Young put Ernest Miranda into a line-up with three other Mexican-Americans from the city jail who approximately matched his physical appearance. Miranda was the only man who wore a shirt that allowed viewers to see his tattooed arms. Cooley and Young put Ernest Miranda into a line-up with three other Mexican-Americans from the city jail who approximately matched his physical appearance. Miranda was the only man who wore a shirt that allowed viewers to see his tattooed arms. The woman looked at them in the line up but was unsure of her attacker. The woman looked at them in the line up but was unsure of her attacker. The two officers and Miranda sat down in Interrogation Room 2, At no point was Miranda advised of his Fifth Amendment right to not incriminate himself or his Sixth Amendment right to consult with a lawyer, but Cooley said later on the witness stand that he believed Miranda was familiar with his Constitutional rights. The two officers and Miranda sat down in Interrogation Room 2, At no point was Miranda advised of his Fifth Amendment right to not incriminate himself or his Sixth Amendment right to consult with a lawyer, but Cooley said later on the witness stand that he believed Miranda was familiar with his Constitutional rights.

Miranda confesses to the rape. The officers presented Miranda with a sheet of paper with a disclaimer at the top: the suspect, in making the written confession, acknowledged that the confession was voluntary and that he understood “his rights” even though those rights were not spelled out on the paper. Miranda wrote a confession that verified many of the same details the woman had told police.

The Trial No witnesses were presented on Ernest’s behalf. The key to the trial, felt his lawyer, was that Miranda’s confession was coerced and thereby inadmissible. No witnesses were presented on Ernest’s behalf. The key to the trial, felt his lawyer, was that Miranda’s confession was coerced and thereby inadmissible. His lawyer filed an insanity defense. Miranda met with psychiatrists for the defense and the state, who eventually told the court that Miranda was at least fit to stand trial. His lawyer filed an insanity defense. Miranda met with psychiatrists for the defense and the state, who eventually told the court that Miranda was at least fit to stand trial. As a result, they abandon his insanity defense claim As a result, they abandon his insanity defense claim

Jury’s Decision The jury decided that Miranda was guilty of rape and kidnapping. Two weeks later, Ernest Miranda was sentenced to 20 to 30 years on both charges. The jury decided that Miranda was guilty of rape and kidnapping. Two weeks later, Ernest Miranda was sentenced to 20 to 30 years on both charges. Miranda appeals the verdict. Miranda appeals the verdict. The Supreme Court looks at a previous case named, Excobedo to gain insight into the verdict of this case. The Supreme Court looks at a previous case named, Excobedo to gain insight into the verdict of this case. In the Escobedo case, the court ruled when police are no longer conducting a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but are focusing on a particular suspect in custody, refusing to allow that suspect to consult with an attorney and failing to warn the suspect of his right to remain silent is denial of the assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment. In the Escobedo case, the court ruled when police are no longer conducting a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but are focusing on a particular suspect in custody, refusing to allow that suspect to consult with an attorney and failing to warn the suspect of his right to remain silent is denial of the assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment.

The Outcome The Supreme Court votes in favor of Miranda, thus creating the Miranda Warnings. The Supreme Court votes in favor of Miranda, thus creating the Miranda Warnings. From this point on, the court decision required, law enforcement officials would have to ensure that detainees have been briefed on and understand their Constitutional rights. Police departments around the country started to inform suspects they have the right to remain silent, anything they say can and will be used against them, that they have the right to an attorney and if they cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided free of charge. From this point on, the court decision required, law enforcement officials would have to ensure that detainees have been briefed on and understand their Constitutional rights. Police departments around the country started to inform suspects they have the right to remain silent, anything they say can and will be used against them, that they have the right to an attorney and if they cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided free of charge.

What happened to Ernest? Ernest Miranda had to stay in jail for other convictions, so he wasn’t just set free. Ernest Miranda had to stay in jail for other convictions, so he wasn’t just set free. He served one-third of his sentence and had been turned down for parole four times before the Arizona Parole Board reluctantly agreed to release him in December He was something of a celebrity, and made a meager income by printing Miranda Warning cards, autographing them and selling them for $1.50. He served one-third of his sentence and had been turned down for parole four times before the Arizona Parole Board reluctantly agreed to release him in December He was something of a celebrity, and made a meager income by printing Miranda Warning cards, autographing them and selling them for $1.50. When he did finally get out of jail, he ended up dying in a gambling fight. He was 36 years old. When he did finally get out of jail, he ended up dying in a gambling fight. He was 36 years old.

Born March 9, 1940 (Mesa, Arizona) Died January 31, 1976 (Phoenix, Arizona) Robber, rapist, murderer His legacy….. Ernest will be forever famous for his time in court. In Miranda v. Arizona the Court determined Miranda's Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination had been violated during a police interrogation. The Miranda Warnings are read to every criminal at the time of arrest today.

The Miranda Warning “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense. "