Miranda vs Arizona
By. Gursewak Rana
What exactly happened?
Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix due to circumstantial evidence that he had been involved in a kidnapping and rape. He confessed to the charges following a lengthy interrogation and signed a statement that said the confession was made knowingly and voluntarily. Miranda never was told of his right to remain silent, of his right to have a lawyer, or of the fact that any of his statements during the interrogation could be used against him in court. He objected to the introduction of the written copy of his confession into evidence at trial, stating that his ignorance of his rights made the confession involuntary. At trial, when prosecutors offered Miranda's written confession as evidence, his court appointed lawyer, Alvin Moore objected that because of these facts, the confession was not truly voluntary and should be excluded. Moore's objection was overruled and based on this confession and other evidence, Miranda was convicted of rape and kidnapping. He was sentenced to 20-30 years of imprisonment on each charge, with sentences to run concurrently. Moore filed Miranda's appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court, claiming that Miranda's confession was not fully voluntary.
Ernesto was a laborer whose conviction on kidnapping, rape, and armed robbery charges based on his confession under police interrogation was set aside in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case (Miranda v. Arizona), which ruled that criminal suspects must be informed of their right against self-incrimination and their right to consult with an attorney before being questioned by police. This warning is known as a Miranda Warning. After the Supreme Court decision set aside Miranda's initial conviction, the state of Arizona retried him. At the second trial, with his confession excluded from evidence, he was again convicted.
Born: March 9, 1941
Died: January 31, 1976 (aged 34)
Cause of death:Stabbing
Resting place:City of Mesa Cemetery
Known for: Miranda Rights
Criminal chargeKidnapping and Rape
Criminal status: Convicted
HOW DID THE MIRANDA V. ARIZONA CASE BECOME CONTROVERSIAL?
Background on Earl Warren
In an article I read on PBS's website I found the bias of Alex McBride in which he said," Ernesto Miranda, whose wrongful conviction led to the landmark case Miranda v. Arizona, in which the Court held that detained criminal suspects must be informed of their rights prior to police questioning."
HOW THE MEDIA PORTRAYED THE EVENT?
He negotiated with police officers with intelligence and understanding.
He signed the confession willingly. The prosecution was proper, his conviction based on Arizona law, and his imprisonment was justified.