|
- Facts and Case Summary - Miranda v. Arizona - United States Courts
Arizona: Miranda was arrested at his home and taken in custody to a police station where he was identified by the complaining witness He was then interrogated by two police officers for two hours, which resulted in a signed, written confession
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966) - Justia U. S. Supreme Court Center
Miranda v Arizona: Under the Fifth Amendment, any statements that a defendant in custody makes during an interrogation are admissible as evidence at a criminal trial only if law enforcement told the defendant of the right to remain silent and the right to speak with an attorney before the interrogation started, and the rights were either
- MIRANDA v. ARIZONA, 384 U. S. 436 (1966) | FindLaw
Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix for kidnapping and rape He voluntarily participated in a line-up where the victim identified him as her attacker Police interrogated him for two hours before Miranda made a written confession to the crime
- Miranda v. Arizona | Oyez
The jury found Miranda guilty On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona affirmed and held that Miranda’s constitutional rights were not violated because he did not specifically request counsel
- Miranda v. Arizona - Case Summary and Case Brief
Arizona trial court found Miranda guilty of rape and kidnapping Upon appeal to the state supreme court, the conviction was affirmed because Miranda did not specifically ask for counsel Miranda then joined several other defendants and petitioned to the Supreme Court of the United States for review Issue (s) and Holding:
- Miranda v. Arizona - Landmark Cases of the US Supreme Court
Ernesto Miranda was arrested after a victim identified him as her assailant The police officers who questioned him did not inform him of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination or of his Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of an attorney
- Miranda v. Arizona | Constitution Center
Summary Ernesto Miranda was accused of a serious crime The police brought Miranda into custody, but they did not inform him of his right to remain silent or his right to an attorney They found a witness and arranged for a lineup of possible suspects They asked the witness whether she could identify the person who committed the crime
- Miranda v. Arizona Case Summary: What You Need to Know - FindLaw
In Miranda, the Supreme Court decided that someone must be warned when "taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way " Generally, this means that someone who does not feel they are free to leave the presence of police officers is "in custody "
|
|
|