Presented by Tim, and Brendan.

1
Arizona V. Miranda

• Presented by Tim, and Brendan.

2
Historical Background

• It all started March 13, 1963 (over 47 years ago
  now), this was the day Ernesto Miranda was
  arrested in Phoenix, Arizona in connection to a
  Kidnapping case, however the police never
  informed him of his rights, nor did they tell him
  if the questioning was voluntary.
• In a lineup with several others, Miranda was
  chosen by the victim as the person who'd
  kidnapped her, and raped her ten days before.
• Initially Miranda knew nothing of the crime,
  however, after two hours of questioning by the
  police Miranda confessed, and at 130pm he wrote
  a written confession with details of the crime.
• He was subsequently arrested and put in jail, he
  was not afforded a lawyer at the police station,
  or at the preliminary hearing. At the
  arraignment, the judge appointed a 76 yr old
  lawyer named Alvin Moore, who had not practiced
  criminal law for over 16 yrs.

3
Historical Background Continued!

• Miranda pleads guilty for reason of insanity, a
  psychiatrist reports his many mental issues
• Arrests for being a Peeping Tom.
• Attempted Rape at 15 yrs old.
• Dishonorably Discharged from the Army.
• Psychiatrist reports him impulsive with little
  self-control, but not insane, as he clearly knew
  the difference between right and wrong.
• Miranda's lawyer argues that as Miranda was not
  informed of his right to attorney his confession
  shouldn't be used in court.
• The first Jury found Miranda guilty of
  Kidnapping, and rape, Miranda appeals, in 1965
  the case was heard by the Arizona Supreme Court.

4
Further Historical Background!

• John J. Flynn replaces Alvin Moore as Miranda's
  lawyer.
• Arizona Supreme court finds that Miranda's rights
  were not violated by the lower court's ruling
  that the confession could be used against him.
  Miranda appeals to the US Supreme Court.
• Due to mounting pressure brought on by the
  Escobedo ruling in June 1964, the Supreme court
  felt they needed to have a final ruling regarding
  the confession issue.
• Just so happens that Miranda V. Arizona was the
  first case in the pile of 140 cases, thus Miranda
  V. Arizona became the poster file of the
  confession issue.

5
Legal Question

• The legal question in this instance was whether
  or not law enforcement had to inform a suspect of
  their 5th amendment rights before/during the
  arrest or interrogation.

6
The Decision

• The person in custody must, prior to
  interrogation, be clearly informed that he has
  the right to remain silent, and that anything he
  says will be used against him in court he must
  be clearly informed that he has the right to
  consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with
  him during interrogation, and that, if he is
  indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent
  him.
• If the individual indicates in any manner, at
  any time prior to or during questioning, that he
  wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must
  cease ... If the individual states that he wants
  an attorney, the interrogation must cease until
  an attorney is present. At that time, the
  individual must have an opportunity to confer
  with the attorney and to have him present during
  any subsequent questioning. - Chief Justice Earl
  Warren.
• As a result of the courts decision Miranda
  conviction was overturned, but was retried, and
  convicted again in 1967, and was sentenced to 20
  to 30 years, he was paroled in 1972, and was
  stabbed to death in a Bar during an argument on
  January 31st, 1976.

7
The Decision Dissent (½ Concurred ½ Dissent)

• Dissent
• "Nothing in the letter or the spirit of the
  Constitution or in the precedents squares with
  the heavy-handed and one-sided action that is so
  precipitously taken by the Court in the name of
  fulfilling its constitutional responsibilities."
  - Justice Harlan.
• Justice Byron White argued that the court was
  creating a new constitutional right when there
  was no basis for such, he said self-incrimination
  forbids in-custody interrogation without the
  warnings specified in the majority opinion and
  without a clear waiver of counsel has no
  significant support in the history of the
  privilege or in the language of the Fifth
  Amendment
• ½ Concurred ½ Dissent
• Justice Tom C. Clark argued that the court was
  going too far, he wanted the court instead to
  consider in each case whether the police officer
  prior to custodial interrogation added the
  warning that the suspect might have counsel
  present at the interrogation and, further, that a
  court would appoint one at his request if he was
  too poor to employ counsel. In the absence of
  warnings, the burden would be on the State to
  prove that counsel was knowingly and
  intelligently waived or that in the totality of
  the circumstances, including the failure to give
  the necessary warnings, the confession was
  clearly voluntary.

8
Precedent

• All suspects must be informed of their 5th
  amendment rights, and the right to an Attorney
  prior/during any interrogation/arrest/investigatio
  n(Their Miranda Rights).
• Confessions, and arrests are void if the suspects
  Miranda Rights are not read to them.
• As of June 1st, 2010, the US supreme court
  decided that criminal suspects who are aware of
  their right to silence and to an attorney, but
  choose not to "unambiguously" invoke them, may
  find any subsequent voluntary statements treated
  as an implied waiver of their rights, and which
  may be used in evidence.

9
Public Support

• In this trial the ACLU(American Civil Liberties
  Union) argued for Miranda for the Rights of the
  People, they reasoned that police cannot be
  allowed to violate people's rights, since people
  can't be protected if they don't know what their
  rights are.
• In addition to the ACLU, the NDAA(National
  District Attorneys Association) argued against
  Miranda, and reasoned that The rights of
  suspects must be balanced against the rights of
  the public to be secure, they believed that
  Miranda rights would kill the legal system as
  suspects would consult an attorney, who would
  then encourage his/her client to not speak.

10
Judgment and Justification

• Personally I would have sided with the US supreme
  court on this issue, it wasn't fair of the police
  to not inform Miranda of his rights prior/during
  his arrest on March 13th, 1963. The written
  confession they made him write I, Ernesto A.
  Miranda, Do hereby swear that I make this
  statement voluntarily and of my own free will,
  with no threats, coercion, or promises of
  immunity and with full knowledge of my legals
  rights, understanding any statement I make may be
  used against me. Is inherently paradoxical, if
  one is under threats, coercion, torture, ones
  torturer would clearly make the tortured say they
  weren't tortured! In any case they violated the
  5th amendment by not informing him of his rights,
  and by not affording him a lawyer at the police
  station, or at the preliminary hearing.