1. Mrs. Washington
Government class
Xavier Woodson
Civil Liberties Project
1/5/13

2. Miranda vs. Arizona

3. Miranda vs. Arizona
• In 1963, Phoenix Arizona, police officials
arrested Ernesto Miranda as a possible
suspect for kidnap and rape.
• Ernesto, who only had a junior high education
and mental problems, was brought in for a
police lineup and possible questioning.
• After 2 hours of questioning Ernesto
confessed to the crimes in writing and was put
in jail until his trial date.

4. Miranda vs. Arizona
• At Ernesto’s trial, the case was based solely on
his written statement, in which he was
convicted and sentenced to 30 years in prison.
• The Mexican immigrant appealed to the
Arizona Supreme Court claiming the “police
had unconstitutionally obtained his
confession”
• The court still ruled against him and upheld
his conviction.

5. Miranda vs. Arizona
• In 1966 Ernesto appealed to the U.S Supreme Court, in
which they reviewed the case and gave him a chance.
• Chief Justice Earl Warren, ruled out the confession as
evidence in the criminal case because the police failed
to inform Ernesto of his right to an attorney and
against self incrimination.
• The Constitutions 5th amendment, gives the criminal
suspect the right to refuse to be a witness against ones
self, The 6th amendment guarantees the defendant or
criminal suspect the right to an attorney.

6. Miranda vs. Arizona
• The court made it clear that the 5th amendment has been
apart of American law for the longest. “it is a means to
equalize the vulnerability inherent in being detained”.
• The court also cited that the police officials used violence
or abused their powers to compel confession’s from Mr.
Miranda
• Chief Justice Earl Warren stated “they deprived the criminal
of his basic liberties which can lead to false confessions, if
the defendants attorney is present in the interrogation
room with him then that should enable him to tell his story
without fear of the interrogation process”.

7. Miranda vs. Arizona
• Its clear that without the two fundamental rights of the
5th and 6th amendments the court ruled that “it dispel
the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings,”
“no statement obtained from the defendant can truly
be a product of his free choice”
• The court then required all police enforcers to read any
detainees their “Miranda Rights”.
• The Miranda Rights begin with “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 a
attorney, if you cannot afford one we will appoint one
to you”.

8. Miranda vs. Arizona
• Because the police failed to read Ernesto his
rights, his conviction was reversed.
• Ernesto and his confession was
unconstitutionally admitted at trial therefore
none of the evidence (which was only his
written confession) could not be brought to
his new trial.
• Still, Miranda was later retried and convicted.

9. Miranda vs. Arizona
• In my opinion, I think Miranda rights are just
another way of letting police officers hold you
and ask you anything until they feel satisfied.
• I feel as if Mr. Miranda was convicted still
based on his confession even though it was
not admissible when he was retried in court.
• Ernesto Miranda died January 31, 1976 from
wounds of a knife during a brawl in the prison.
He was 34 years old.

10. Miranda vs. Arizona
• www.doney.net
• www.atyourage.com
• www.about.com
• www.chacha.com