Hide Notes 

Slide 1: Miranda v. Arizona By: Christine Baumgarten
Slide 2: Basic info  Four were picked.     Miranda v. Arizona Vignera v. New York Westover v. United States Johnston v. New Jersey  (added later) California v. Stewart   February 28, 1966 The Question at hand: Should the police read out a suspect’s rights and make sure that a suspect has a counsel present?
Slide 3: The Defense The main idea:  Rights of the people: Police cannot violate people’s rights and lawyers must be present to tell people their rights
Slide 4: The Defense  Miranda’s Lawyer said, “Under the facts and circumstances in Miranda, of a man of limited education, of a man who certainly is mentally abnormal, who is, certainly, an indigent, police at the very least had an obligation to extend to this man, not only his clear 5th Amendment right, but to accord him the right of counsel” “After the two-hour interrogation, the mere formality of supplying counsel to Ernest Miranda at the time of trial…would be noting more than a mockery of his 6th Amendment right to be represented in court.”
Slide 5: In his words    “I didn’t know whether I had a choice [about going to the police station]. They said they couldn’t tell me anything.” After two hours of questioning he admitted committing the crime. He said the police told him the victim picked him out of a lineup and that he “might as well admit to the crime.”
Slide 7: The Prosecution  Duane R. Nedrud, acting for the National District Attorneys’ Association A central issues:    Public Safety: There needs to be a balance between the rights of the suspect and the rights of the public to be secure He said that limiting the use of confessions would take the most important piece of evidence from the police
Slide 8: The Prosecution  He conceded that a suspect who asked for a lawyer should be given one but, Nedrud said, “I do not think we should effect encourage him to have a lawyer.” [lawyers] “Prevent a confession from being obtained.”
Slide 9: If I were the judge  The rights of the accused must be upheld; therefore, I would follow what had been decided
Slide 10: Chief Justice Earl Warren
Slide 11: Results   The police must read off a suspect’s rights before interrogating him or her. Failure to do so may result in the suspect getting to walk free. The court is trying to make sure that even the accused has rights, that we are all equal under the law.
Slide 12: Miranda Rights You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to talk to a lawyer and have him present while you’re being questioned. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you before any questioning, if you wish.
Slide 13: Effect on society   The main effect is now all police must read a suspect their Miranda Rights If not it means a suspect’s confession can be thrown out
Slide 14: Irony    On January 31, 1976 a fight broke out. Miranda was killed from a knife wound. Police read the suspect his rights He choose to remain silent and fled to Mexico.
Slide 15: Bibliography Books: Gold, Susan Dudley. Miranda v, Arizona (1966) Suspects' Rights. Markham, Ontario: Fitzhenry and Whiteside Ltd., 1995. Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernesto_Miranda#L
Slide 16: Bibliography Images:  http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2005/june  http://pro.corbis.com/search/Enlargement.asp  http://www.mnhs.org/library/tips/history_topic