Miranda+vs.+Arizona

What amendment did this case deal with and what does it say? The fifth and sixth amendments for the Fifth Amendment is that no can be held to answer for a infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury. But not for cases that deal with the land or naval forces or for the militia for the time or war. Also no one can be held on the same trial twits for the sixth amendment the person that’s being accused can enjoy the right to a speedy trial.

What is the background of the case? Summarize what happened On march 13 1966 a man kidnapped and raped a woman but after he was arrested the police never told him his rights so as this was happening the police made him sing a thing saying that he knows his rights when in court he was found julitey and was sentenced 20 years but he said I don’t think this is fair so the court gave him another court case for the same thing this time.

What was the final decision of the Supreme Court and why did they decide this? The Supreme Court basically said to the police that you have to say the people’s rights like these two the right to remain silent and anything he said would be used agents you and the right to the presence of an attorney By Henry Ainey

Name: Sean Elliott Date:11/10/11 Court Case:

What amendment did this case deal with and what does it say? There were twoThe fifth and sixth amendments that this case dealt with. They werefor the 5th and 6th amendments. The 5thFifth Amendment is about the grand jury clause, the grand jury exception clause, double jeopardy clause, self-incrimination clause, due process clause, and the eminent domain clause. The 6th dealt withthat no can be held to answer for a speedy trial,infamous crime unless on a public trial,presentment or indictment of a right to a trial,grand jury. But not for cases that deal with the arraignment clause,land or naval forces or for the confrontation clause,militia for the compulsory process, andtime or war. Also no one can be held on the same trial twits for the sixth amendment the person that’s being accused can enjoy the right to a lawyer. The police did not read any of his rights to him. That is why he went to court over it. The amendments were the 5th and 6th ones that this case dealt with. Whatspeedy trial. Summarize what happened! In March of 1963happened On march 13 1966 a kidnappingman kidnapped and sexual assault happened in Phoenix, Arizona. March 13 Ernesto Mirandaraped a woman but after he was arrested and taken to the police station. The victim identifiednever told him and took him into interrogation room, but was not told his rights to council prior to questioning. Two weeks later at a preliminary Miranda was again denied a lawyer. Miranda was convicted of kidnapping and rape, a received a 20-year sentence. Back then even if you signed a confession paper they can use it against you in court so he just basically just lost it because he admitted it. Arizona ignored both Escobedo rule (evidence obtained from an illegally obtained confession) and the Gideon rule (all felony defendants have a right to an attorney) in prosecuting Miranda. His confession was obtained illegally so it should be thrown out. His conviction was faulty and deserved a new trial. The Miranda warning came fromas this case so now people will get read their rights and if they don’t and there confess it can’t be used against them. What was happening the final decision of the Supreme Court and why did they decide this? There final decision was to free him. The Supreme Court hadpolice made him sing a 5-4 decision which means that 5 agreed to let him go but 4 didn’t. They decided this because they didn’t tell Mirandathing saying that he had a right to a lawyer or they would give him one. So there final decision was to let Miranda go free, but later on they charged him again then he was found guilty.

Alyssa Hubal What amendment did this case deal with and what does it say? The Miranda vs. Arizona case dealt with the 5th and 6th amendment. Under the 5th amendment anyone had the rights to remain silent and to have the rights read to him under this amendment (the Miranda Warning which was then created because ofknows his trail). Under the 6th amendment he had the right to a legal counsel. These rights were violated. The police did not notify Ernesto Miranda of his rights of an attorney and self-incrimination. The 6th right was also violated because everyone including criminal defendants has a right to an attorney. What is the background of the case? Summarize what happened! A resident of Phoenix Arizona, Ernesto Miranda, was charged with rape, kidnapping, and robbery on March 13, 1963. He was arrestedwhen in his home at the age of 23 the taken to the police station because he had been identified by the victim. Before his 2 hour interrogationcourt he was not read his rights. He then willingly signed the confession of these crimes. At his preliminary hearing two weeks after, hefound julitey and was denied of a lawyer. He was then charged with rape and kidnapping and sentenced with 20-3020 years in prison. But because the state of Arizona violated some of his right s his confession should have been thrown out because it was obtained illegally. Therefore,but he should have had a new trial because ofsaid I don’t think this is fair so the faulty. Whatcourt gave him another court case for the same thing this time. decide this? The The Supreme Court votedbasically said to overturn Ernesto Miranda’s conviction by a 5-4 margin. Therefore, Miranda found innocent because they could not use his confession as evidence. But they later had tried him again and found him guilty because there was enough evidence to support the decision. Because his retrial was based on prisoner’s successful appeal it was not double jeopardy. Ernesto Miranda then went to jail because of the retrial.

Baily Barnes What Amendment did this case deal with and what does it say? This case has a violation of the fifth amendment. This amendment sayspolice that all accused citizens are entitledyou have to due process of law. The other part ofsay the fifth amendment is when you are arrested you must be read your right, otherwise known aspeople’s rights like these two the Miranda Warning. What is the background of the case? Summarize what happened! On March 13, 1963 Ernesto Miranda was arrested in his home and taken downright to the police station. When he was arrested, the police didn't read him his rights. The police had him sign a confession paper. They also had a typed disclaimer that he signed, stating her knew his rightsremain silent and anything he said willwould be used against him. Two weeks laterat a preliminary hearing. Mirnada was deinied a council, but he did show up with a lawyer. He was then charged with kidnappingagents you and rape. What was the final position of the Supreme Court and why did they decide this?__ He appealed and the case wentright to the Supreme Court. They changed the decsionpresence of allt he other courts. They found him not guilty because he wasn't read his rights. He also wasn't going to be convicted of kidnapping and rape becasue of the fifth amendment violation.an attorney