Miranda vs Arizona essays

Miranda vs Arizona essays In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix, Arizona for armed robbery, and for kidnapping and raping a slightly retarded 18-year-old woman. He already had a record for armed robbery, and juvenile record including attempted rape, assault, and burglary. While in police custody he signed a written confession to the crime. After the conviction, his lawyers appealed, on the grounds that Miranda did not know he was protected from self-incrimination. The police did not tell Miranda of his right to counsel when he was arrested. The chief justice at the time Earl Warren established the Miranda Rights. These rights make it so that the police have to inform the person that they are taking custody over their rights. These rights include the right to remain silent; that any thing they say can be used against them in a court of law; they have the right to the presence of an attorney; and that, if they cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for them prior to any questioning if t hey so desire. Miranda was not informed of his rights so any confessions that he that he made prior to his rights being read could not be used against him. Although Miranda confessed to rape and kidnapping he could not be prosecuted because of it. So the first court ruling where he was found guilty had to be disposed of. So he appealed the court decision and brought the case all the way up to the Supreme Court. Miranda appeal made it to the Supreme Court. Miranda was pleading that he was not informed of his rights to a lawyer according to the 6th amendment. Also he was not informed about his right to remain silent. These are the reasons why Miranda made his appeal. In Supreme Court the conviction was overthrown. In a ruling issued in 1966, the court established that the accused have the right to remain silent and that prosecutors may not use statements made by defendants while in police custody unless the p ...