Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
Terms in this set (9)
Ernesto Miranda was arrested by Phoenix police for kidnapping and raping a woman.
He was questioned for 2 hours by police without a lawyer present.
Officers testified in court that they did not inform Miranda of his right to counsel.
The police left the interrogation room with Miranda's signed, written confession.
The confession statement was used against Miranda in the trial and he was found guilty of both kidnap and rape to which he received 20 to 30 years in jail.
If the police do not tell a suspect of their right to a lawyer, can statements obtained during the questioning be entered as evidence or does that violate the 5th Amendments which protects against self incrimination?
The justices voted 5 to 4 that law enforcement officials must advise suspects to be interrogated of their rights to remain silent and to obtain an attorney.
Police officers now carry with them the Miranda Warnings.
These warnings are read to suspects when taken into police custody and before questioning begins.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE...
Policing: Topic 01 - Individual Rights and Topic 02 - Trials of Police Work
K (J) Unit 4 Your Rights Due Process 4, 5th, Miranda due process, warrants cases mapp v ohio, New York v. Quarles 1983, Duckwork v Egan, Horton v california , Terry v Ohio, Miranda, Alvarodo,
OTHER SETS BY THIS CREATOR
Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha (1983)
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)
Miller v. California (1973)
Korematsu v. U.S. (1944)
THIS SET IS OFTEN IN FOLDERS WITH...
Brown vs. Board of Education
Miranda v. Arizona
Important Supreme Court Cases
Escobedo v Illinois