*Miranda+v.+Arizona

​ **Miranda v. Arizona** 1.5/2 LABEL PICTURE!

1. February 28- March 1, 1966, and decided June 13, 1966 1/1

2. In Phoenix, Arizona, on March 13 of 1963 COMMA Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and sexual assault. He was arrested at his home and taken to a Phoenix police station COMMA where the victim was identified and taken into interrogation. Prior to questioning, the investigators failed to tell Miranda his rights to counsel. The right to counsel means that a defendant has a constitutional right to be represented by an attorney during trial. It also means that if the defendant cannot afford an attorney, the government will appoint one to handle the case at no cost to the defendant. A few hours PASSED AND the investigators were able to gather a written confession signed by Miranda himself. This included a disclaimer stating that he had "full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement i make may be used against me." At his preliminary hearing, Miranda was denied his counsel once again. At his trial he did have a lawyer present, but his lawyers objections to use the signed confession as evidence was overruled. Miranda was convicted of kidnapping and rape, and received a sentence of twenty years. GOOD 5/5

3. Miranda’s 5th and 6th Amendment right was violated by police. The 5th Amendment gives Miranda the right to remain silent and the 6th Amendment is the right to legal counsel. Previously established precedents played a key role in this court case The Escobedo rule and the Gideon rule. The Escobedo rule states that evidence obtained from an illegally obtained confession is inadmissible in court. And the Gideon rule that states all felony defendants have the right to an attorney. The state of Arizona ignored both of these precedents. TELL ME THE QUESTION - NOT THE RULING 4/5

4. By a vote of 5-4 the court came to a decision to overturn Miranda's conviction. Chief Justice Warren representing the majority of the votes stated that it is the law enforcement agencies burden to state the suspect’s rights. Miranda retracted his confession and was put on trial once again by the state of Arizona. He was found guilty and sent to prison for twenty years. A new term called the Miranda Warning was created, it reminded law enforcement agencies to inform citizens to questioning in a criminal investigation of their rights. 5/5 GOOD

5. This case is significant because this specific case changed and established procedures for court cases in the future. The Miranda warning continues to pressure law enforcement to state the suspects rights. This pressure forces law enforcement to take every case seriously following all questioning procedures. The people of The United States need to understand their rights so mishaps like this don't happen again. 5/5

Sources:

(2009). A Problem (And Solution) With the Miranda Right to Counsel. //The Elliot schlissel new york law blog//. New York.

(2005, march 9). //Miranda v. arizona (1966)//. Retrieved from []- court/cases/ar23.html

WHAT ABOUT YOUR IMAGE? 1.5/2

23/25 = 92% (B+) GOOD WORK - SEE COMMENTS ABOVE