Laws Lawyers Find Laws Legal Forms State Laws Bills
Home » Find Laws » Cases Laws » Famous Trials » Miranda v. Arizona

Miranda v. Arizona

Listen
What is Miranda v. Arizona (1966)?Miranda v. Arizona was a court case that took place in the State of Arizona in which Ernesto Miranda, a 22 year old male, was accused of raping an 18 year old female in 1963. Upon his apprehension, Miranda was presented with a confession requiring his signature; Miranda underwent a police interrogation that was reported as spanning upwards of 2 hours – within his interrogation, he made a full confession, agreeing that he did so without duress, force, or threat. However, Miranda’s attorneys argued that not only did the arresting officers not make Miranda aware of his right to representation, but they also neglected to advise Miranda of his right to remain silent in order to avoid any nature of self-incrimination:Subsequent to the initial verdict, Miranda was found guilty of the charge of rape; however, he appealed the verdict and Miranda v. Arizona was heard before the Supreme CourtThe Supreme Court hearing undertook judicial review with regard to the validity of a confession with regard to the level of information provided to the suspect in questionThe 5th Amendment of the constitution requires a suspect be informed of a right to remain silent upon an arrest; The 6th Amendment requires a suspect under arrest to be informed to their right to a fair and represented hearingThe Case Profile of Miranda v. ArizonaThe following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Miranda v. Arizona’:Date of the Trial: 1966Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field associated with events and circumstances in which the Federal Government of the United States engages its citizens, including the administration of government programs, the creation of agencies, and the establishment of a legal, regulatory federal standardAccused Criminal Activity: Although Miranda was accused of rape, the appeal addressed the lack of due process within Miranda’s arrestUnited States Reports Case Number: 384 U.S. 436Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: June 13th, 1966Legal Venue: The Supreme Court of State of ArizonaJudicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Earl WarrenVerdict Delivered: Warren found that both Miranda’s 5th and 6th Amendment rights had been violated; however, supplementary evidence contributed to the finding of a ‘guilty’ verdict with regard to the rape trial – Miranda served 11 years in prisonAssociated Legislation with regard to Miranda v. Arizona: The Miranda Rights were established subsequent to the hearing of Miranda v. Arizona; these statutes state that upon an arrest protocol that be upheld by any and all arresting officers:The Miranda Rights include the Fifth Amendment, which states that an individual retains the right to remain silent in order to avoid incriminating themselves – this is also known as ‘pleading the Fifth’The Miranda Rights require that arrestees are made aware of their respective right to counsel and trialThe right for any words spoken during the arrest to be admissible during a trialThe right to consult with an attorney; regardless of financial stature
Font Size: AAA
Loading...
  • Play
  • Pause
  • Volume:
  • Mute
  • Half
  • Max
  • Miranda Arizona

    What is Miranda v. Arizona (1966)?

    Miranda v. Arizona was a court case that took place in the State of Arizona in which Ernesto Miranda, a 22 year old male, was accused of raping an 18 year old female in 1963. Upon his apprehension, Miranda was presented with a confession requiring his signature; Miranda underwent a police interrogation that was reported as spanning upwards of 2 hours – within his interrogation, he made a full confession, agreeing that he did so without duress, force, or threat. However, Miranda’s attorneys argued that not only did the arresting officers not make Miranda aware of his right to representation, but they also neglected to advise Miranda of his right to remain silent in order to avoid any nature of self-incrimination:

    Subsequent to the initial verdict, Miranda was found guilty of the charge of rape; however, he appealed the verdict and Miranda v. Arizona was heard before the Supreme Court

    The Supreme Court hearing undertook judicial review with regard to the validity of a confession with regard to the level of information provided to the suspect in question

    The 5th Amendment of the constitution requires a suspect be informed of a right to remain silent upon an arrest; The 6th Amendment requires a suspect under arrest to be informed to their right to a fair and represented hearing

    The Case Profile of Miranda v. Arizona

    The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Miranda v. Arizona’:

    Date of the Trial: 1966

    Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field associated with events and circumstances in which the Federal Government of the United States engages its citizens, including the administration of government programs, the creation of agencies, and the establishment of a legal, regulatory federal standard

    Accused Criminal Activity: Although Miranda was accused of rape, the appeal addressed the lack of due process within Miranda’s arrest

    United States Reports Case Number: 384 U.S. 436

    Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: June 13th, 1966

    Legal Venue: The Supreme Court of State of Arizona

    Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Earl Warren

    Verdict Delivered: Warren found that both Miranda’s 5th and 6th Amendment rights had been violated; however, supplementary evidence contributed to the finding of a ‘guilty’ verdict with regard to the rape trial – Miranda served 11 years in prison

    Associated Legislation with regard to Miranda v. Arizona: The Miranda Rights were established subsequent to the hearing of Miranda v. Arizona; these statutes state that upon an arrest protocol that be upheld by any and all arresting officers:

    The Miranda Rights include the Fifth Amendment, which states that an individual retains the right to remain silent in order to avoid incriminating themselves – this is also known as ‘pleading the Fifth’

    The Miranda Rights require that arrestees are made aware of their respective right to counsel and trial

    The right for any words spoken during the arrest to be admissible during a trial

    The right to consult with an attorney; regardless of financial stature

    Related Articles

    Link To This Page

    Comments

    POPULAR IN CASES

    Weeks v. United States
    CASES
    Weeks v. United States
    Brown v. Board of Education
    CASES
    Brown v. Board of Education
    Guide to Finding a Lawyer
    Tips