FC: Miranda v. Arizona | BY Maura Folliard and Hannah Sansom
1: Background Information | In March of1936 Ernesto Miranda was taken into custody for kidnapping and rape of Rebeca Ann Johnson. The victim chose Miranda out of a group of 4 men as her attacker. After two hours of questioning, Miranda signed a confession to the kidnapping and rape.
2: Without any knowledge of his right to counsel, his right to remain silent, or that his statements would be used against him in court, Miranda signed a confession to the Rape and Kidnapping.
3: Miranda signed a confession that stated "I do hereby swear that I make this statement voluntarily and of my own fee will, with no threats, coercion, or promises of immunity, and with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me."
4: At Trial Prosecutors used Miranda's confession as evidence and his court appointed lawyer, Alvin Moore objected because the confession was not truly voluntary. The objection was overruled and Miranda was convicted of Rape and kidnapping and charged with 20 to 30 years of imprisonment on each charge.
5: Moore then filed Miranda's appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court on the claim that Miranda's confession was not fully voluntary. the Arizona Supreme court ruled that the conviction was to be upheld on the basis that Miranda already knew his rights because he was an ex-convict. | Path to the Supreme Court
6: While in prison MIranda personally made a request that the USSC hear his case, this type of request is called a petition for writ of certiorari. MIranda forgot to attach a statement of inability to pay as well as the final judgment of the Arizona supreme court to the petition, so it was dismissed
7: MIranda got two new lawyers, John Flynn and John Frank to take the case to the USSC, under the sixth amendment. They agreed to represent MIranda on a pro bono, or a no charge, basis.
8: After Miranda's lawyers and lawyers of other cases has submitted petitions of writ of certiorari, the supreme court justices began the process of deciding what cases they would hear. On November 22 1965 the USSC granted certiorari in MIrandas case
9: The Supreme Court | MIrandas lawyers to base their argument on the 6th amendment right to council, but the SupremeCourt justices were more interested in the discussion of the 5th amendment privilege against self incrimination.
10: Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered the ruling that no confession could be acceptable under the fifth amendment Self incrimination clause, and the right to an attorney stated in the sixth amendment unless the suspect was aware of their rights and had then waived them.
11: By a 5-4 margin the court overturned Miranda's conviction. The court established that Miranda's signing of a statement which contained a typed-in clause staying that he had 'full knowledge' of his 'legal rights" is not the same as the knowing and intelligent waiver required to relinquish constitutional rights.
12: The Supreme Court decided that the MIranda ruling did not apply to cases decided before the Supreme Courts MIranda decision.
13: The Aftermath | After a suspect has been arrested they must be read what is now called their Miranda rights before being questioned.
14: "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law. You have the right to the presence of an attorney to assist you during questioning, if you so desire. If you cannot afford a attorney, you have the right to have one appointed for you prior to questioning. Do you understand these rights?" | MIRANDA WARNING
15: The Miranda decision was widely criticized because many felt it was unfair to inform suspected criminals of their rights. | Courts have ruled that anyone who wavers their Miranda rights must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
16: Additional Supreme Court cases concerning Miranda Rights... | In 1971 allowed a limited use of a defendants confession in court, even if the defendant hadn't been given the Miranda Warning. | In 1979 ruled that the waver of rights under the MIranda warnings does not have to be in writing. | Harris v. New York | North Carolina v. Butler
17: In 1989 chipped away more of the mIranda decision by ruling that police were not required to provide "on call" lawyers for suspects. | In 1993 stated that Miranda rights take precedence over other types of rights. | Duckworth v. Eagan | Withrow v. United States
18: Works Cited “Miranda v. Arizona.” The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 May 2012.
19: Pictures http://aznow.biz/legal/centennial-series-top-10-arizona-legal-cases-century http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Miranda_v_Arizona.aspx http://faculty.nwacc.edu/jtobler/landmarkCases/Miranda_v_Arizona/Miranda%20index.htm willsavive.blogspot.com http://www.east-buc.k12.ia.us/02_03/ag/mir/kc2.htm generationrefuled.blogspot.com http://ptychulski.edu.glogster.com/miranda-v-arizona/ http://politicalcartel.org/ http://www.ehow.com/about_4566779_miranda-v-arizona-case.html