Glog from Richardson US Apr 10 2016

Arizona v.Miranda1966

V I D E O

What Happened...A kidnapping and sexual assault occurred in Phoenix, Arizona, in March 1963. Ernesto Miranda, 23, was arrested for this kidnapping. He was then taken to the police station and the victim identified him as him being the one who assaulted her. After being identidief he was taken into the interogation room, none of this rights to consel were rovided for him. Investigators left the room with a written, signed confession by Miranda. Two weeks later at a preliminary hearing, Miranda again was denied counsel. At his trial he did have a lawyer, whose objections to the use of Miranda's signed confession as evidence were overruled. Miranda was then convicted of kidnapping and rape, and received a 20-year sentence.

P I C T U R E S

Final DecisionBy a 5-4 margin, the Supreme Court voted to overturn Miranda's conviction. Chief Justice Warren declared that the burden is upon the State to demonstrate that “procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination” are followed. Now, because of this ruling, the Miranda Warning is required by policemen to inform citizens subject to questioning in a criminal investigation of their rights to “due process.” Ernesto Miranda, retracted his confession, but was tried again by the State of Arizona. He was found guilty, and sent to prison

Case

Questions Raised by the CaseWas a confession an admissible document in a court of law if it was obtained without warnings against self-incrimination and without legal counsel—rights guaranteed to all persons by the 5th and 6th amendments?With whom does the burden of proof rest for determining whether a defendant has legally “waived” his or her rights? What is the standard for judging whether “voluntary confessions” should be deemed admissible?