Miranda+v.+Arizona+(R2)

This case is probably the most citied case. In this case Ernesto Miranda was arrested on March 18, 1963, at his home in Arizona and taken to a Phoniex police station. Witnesses identified Miranda as a rapist. They brought Miranda to an interrogation room where he was questioned by two police officers. He confessed and signed a written statement without being told he had a right to a lawyer. In overturning Miranda's conviction, Chief Justice Earl Warren held that the prosecution may not use statements made by a person that is in police custody unless minimum procedural safeguards were in place. Before someone is questioned a person must by given a "Miranda warning" : that you have the right to remain silent; that anything you say may be used as evidence against you; that you that you may request prescence of an attorney, either retained by you or appointed by the court and you have the right after you begin to answer questions you can stop answering and request an attorney. Civil liberties groups continued to protest that police routinely omit Miranda warnings.**  **Q: Does the police practice of interrogating individuals without notifying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self- incrimination violate the 5th amendment?** **YES, it does violate the 5th amendment because they have the right to remain silent but everyone doesn’t know their rights so the police have to tell them.**
 * media type="custom" key="3544766"Miranda v. Arizona
 * ISSUE/MAJOR QUESTION**
 * I: ** **Must law enforcement officials inform an accused of his constitutional rights? Are statements obtained from an individual subjected to custodial police interrogation admissible if he has not been notified of his privilege under the 5th Amendment not to be compelled to incriminate himself?**
 * MAJOR LAW OR RIGHTS DISCUSSED**
 * 5th amendment // : //** **No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.**
 * DECISION**

__ **ARGUMENTS:** __
 * For Miranda: The police clearly violated Miranda's 5th Amendment right to remain silent, and his 6th Amendment right to legal counsel. Arizona ignored both the // Escobedo // rule (evidence obtained from an illegally obtained confession is inadmissible in court) and the // Gideon // rule (all felony defendants have the right to an attorney) in prosecuting Miranda. His confession was illegally obtained and should be thrown out. His conviction was faulty, and he deserved a new trial. **
 * For Arizona: Ernesto Miranda was no stranger to police procedures. He negotiated with police officers with intelligence and understanding. He signed the confession willingly. The prosecution was proper, his conviction was based on Arizona law, and his imprisonment was just. The Supreme Court should uphold his conviction and should not further cripple the work of police.**

**IMPACT**
 * When someone is arrested the police now have to read them their Miranda rights or if they don’t then they have a right to be freed. **

**DISSENTING ARGUMENT**
 * In a strong dissent, Justice John Harlan argued: “It's obviously going to mean the disappearance of confessions as a legitimate tool of law enforcement.” He concluded, “The thrust of the new rule is to negate all pressures, to reinforce the nervous or ignorant suspect, and ultimately to discourage any confession at all.” **