Summarize. Include background information and the court’s decision.
In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was accused of sexual assault against a woman in Phoenix. After interrogation and confessing to the crimes, Miranda was convicted for 20-30 years per count. However, he later attempted to appeal the case to the Supreme Court of Arizona, his attorney arguing that due to the fact that he was not told his Fifth and Sixth amendment rights as an American citizen, that all the confessions he made before he was told the rights cannot be used against him. Although the police admit that they neglected to inform him of his rights, the court still ruled Miranda guilty, as he had been convicted previously and should already know the rights he has in interrogation. The ruling was later reversed by the Supreme Court.
Contextualize. Why did it matter at the given time in History? Not telling accused persons of their rights is a violation of the constitution. The amendments state:
“No person...shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself...without due process of law...”
“the accused shall enjoy the right to...have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor..” …show more content…
Arizona roused a question of how the constitution and its amendments apply in a court of law. A case in the past had already established that the Fifth amendment protected anyone from being forced to confess, or speak without an attorney, but according to the Miranda vs. Arizona trial, his interrogation prior to his trial was not unconstitutional. The ruling sparked a discussion within America that would later lead to a momentous creation of a list of standards to be used in all jurisdictions within court that would reduce the abuse of a person’s rights during trial, aiding to prevent wrongful or biased
In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was accused of sexual assault against a woman in Phoenix. After interrogation and confessing to the crimes, Miranda was convicted for 20-30 years per count. However, he later attempted to appeal the case to the Supreme Court of Arizona, his attorney arguing that due to the fact that he was not told his Fifth and Sixth amendment rights as an American citizen, that all the confessions he made before he was told the rights cannot be used against him. Although the police admit that they neglected to inform him of his rights, the court still ruled Miranda guilty, as he had been convicted previously and should already know the rights he has in interrogation. The ruling was later reversed by the Supreme Court.
Contextualize. Why did it matter at the given time in History? Not telling accused persons of their rights is a violation of the constitution. The amendments state:
“No person...shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself...without due process of law...”
“the accused shall enjoy the right to...have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor..” …show more content…
Arizona roused a question of how the constitution and its amendments apply in a court of law. A case in the past had already established that the Fifth amendment protected anyone from being forced to confess, or speak without an attorney, but according to the Miranda vs. Arizona trial, his interrogation prior to his trial was not unconstitutional. The ruling sparked a discussion within America that would later lead to a momentous creation of a list of standards to be used in all jurisdictions within court that would reduce the abuse of a person’s rights during trial, aiding to prevent wrongful or biased