Miranda V. Arizona
Court Brief
Miranda v. Arizona Citation: Miranda v. State of Arizona; Westover v. United States; Vignera v. State of New York; State of California v. Stewart, Supreme Court of the United States, 1966.
Issue: Whether the government is required to notify the arrested defendants of their Fifth Amendment constitutional rights against self-incrimination before they interrogate the defendants.
Relief Sought: Miranda was violated the 5th Amendments right to remain silent and his 6th Amendment right to legal counsel. Arizona ignored both the Escobedo rule that states all evidence obtained from an illegally obtained confession is inadmissible in court and the Gideon rule that states that all felony defendants have the right to an attorney while prosecuting Miranda. His confession was illegally obtained and should be thrown out. His conviction was false, and he deserved a new trial.
Facts: In March 1963 Ernesto Miranda, 23, was arrested in his home, taken to the police station for being accused in a sexual assult case. Once identified by the victim he was taken into an interrogation room where he was to give his confession but Miranda was not told of his rights to counsel prior to questioning. He did though, sign a typed disclaimer that stated he had “full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me,” and that he had knowingly waived those rights.
Two weeks later at a preliminary hearing, Miranda again was denied counsel. At his trial he did have a lawyer, whose objections to the use of Miranda's signed confession as evidence were overruled.
Finding (Holding) of the Court: This case held that government authorities need to inform individuals of their Fifth Amendment constitutional rights prior to an interrogation following an arrest. Reasoning: The Court held that prosecutors could not use statements from secure interrogation of defendants unless they demonstrated the use of routine defenses. The Court noted
Miranda v. Arizona Citation: Miranda v. State of Arizona; Westover v. United States; Vignera v. State of New York; State of California v. Stewart, Supreme Court of the United States, 1966.
Issue: Whether the government is required to notify the arrested defendants of their Fifth Amendment constitutional rights against self-incrimination before they interrogate the defendants.
Relief Sought: Miranda was violated the 5th Amendments right to remain silent and his 6th Amendment right to legal counsel. Arizona ignored both the Escobedo rule that states all evidence obtained from an illegally obtained confession is inadmissible in court and the Gideon rule that states that all felony defendants have the right to an attorney while prosecuting Miranda. His confession was illegally obtained and should be thrown out. His conviction was false, and he deserved a new trial.
Facts: In March 1963 Ernesto Miranda, 23, was arrested in his home, taken to the police station for being accused in a sexual assult case. Once identified by the victim he was taken into an interrogation room where he was to give his confession but Miranda was not told of his rights to counsel prior to questioning. He did though, sign a typed disclaimer that stated he had “full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me,” and that he had knowingly waived those rights.
Two weeks later at a preliminary hearing, Miranda again was denied counsel. At his trial he did have a lawyer, whose objections to the use of Miranda's signed confession as evidence were overruled.
Finding (Holding) of the Court: This case held that government authorities need to inform individuals of their Fifth Amendment constitutional rights prior to an interrogation following an arrest. Reasoning: The Court held that prosecutors could not use statements from secure interrogation of defendants unless they demonstrated the use of routine defenses. The Court noted