Miranda Vs Arizona Summary
Case Briefing Miranda v. Arizona
I. Facts
The United States Supreme Court combined four different cases that had problems with four separate cases with issues concerning the acceptability of proof obtained during police questionings.
A. First, Ernesto Miranda was arrested for abduction and rape. Mr. Miranda was an immigrant, and the police did not read Miranda his rights; however, Mr. Miranda signed a statement after his investigation that concluded that he was knowledgeable of his rights.
B. Second, Michael Vignera was arrested for mugging. Mr. Vignera told the police officers that he was guilty after he was arrested. The police detained Mr. Vignera for eight hours in detention. Afterwards, he was assigned to a district attorney. Mr. Vignera. There was no proof …show more content…
Fourth, Roy Allen Stewart and some of his family was arrested (there was no proof that his family committed a crime) for a sequence of stealing purses. Mr. Stewart admitted to stealing the purses after he was interrogated nine times. There was no proof shown that Mr. Stewart was aware of his Fifth Amendment rights.
II. Procedure History
Decision made by the United States Supreme Court on June 13, 1966. Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Arizona. Defendant Superior Ct.; affirmed, 401 P.2d 721 (Ariz. 1965); cert. granted, 382 U.S. 925 (1965)
III. Issue
To determine, whether the government is obligated to notify the arrested defendants of their Fifth Amendment constitutional rights against self-accusation before they question the suspects?
IV. Rule (s)
It is imperative that authorities who arrest individuals notify them of their Fifth Amendment rights, especially their right to remain silent; that anything they say or do can be used against them in court; they have a right to an attorney, and if they do not have an attorney, they have the right to have a court appointed attorney. Deprived of this notification, any crime that a suspect owns up to will not be used in court.
V. Application/
I. Facts
The United States Supreme Court combined four different cases that had problems with four separate cases with issues concerning the acceptability of proof obtained during police questionings.
A. First, Ernesto Miranda was arrested for abduction and rape. Mr. Miranda was an immigrant, and the police did not read Miranda his rights; however, Mr. Miranda signed a statement after his investigation that concluded that he was knowledgeable of his rights.
B. Second, Michael Vignera was arrested for mugging. Mr. Vignera told the police officers that he was guilty after he was arrested. The police detained Mr. Vignera for eight hours in detention. Afterwards, he was assigned to a district attorney. Mr. Vignera. There was no proof …show more content…
Fourth, Roy Allen Stewart and some of his family was arrested (there was no proof that his family committed a crime) for a sequence of stealing purses. Mr. Stewart admitted to stealing the purses after he was interrogated nine times. There was no proof shown that Mr. Stewart was aware of his Fifth Amendment rights.
II. Procedure History
Decision made by the United States Supreme Court on June 13, 1966. Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Arizona. Defendant Superior Ct.; affirmed, 401 P.2d 721 (Ariz. 1965); cert. granted, 382 U.S. 925 (1965)
III. Issue
To determine, whether the government is obligated to notify the arrested defendants of their Fifth Amendment constitutional rights against self-accusation before they question the suspects?
IV. Rule (s)
It is imperative that authorities who arrest individuals notify them of their Fifth Amendment rights, especially their right to remain silent; that anything they say or do can be used against them in court; they have a right to an attorney, and if they do not have an attorney, they have the right to have a court appointed attorney. Deprived of this notification, any crime that a suspect owns up to will not be used in court.
V. Application/