external image mutt_and_jeff.gif Miranda V. Arizona Case

Background: This case has to do with understanding the rights to remain silent, have the attorney present during trial and stop answering quesitons at anytime during the trial.

Year: 1966

Nature of conflict: Ernesto Miranda was arrested for being accused of kidnap and rape. He was not informed that he had the right to remain silent. He was never told that the attorney had the right to be present in the case. Besides the right to remain silent, he was not informed of any rights that he had while he was on trial.

Amendments Violated: 5th and 6th amendment

Decision Made: Miranda was in the line-up of the police. After he was kidnapped, he was questioned. He then confessed and signed a written document of his confession. What he didn't know was that he had the right to have a lawyer on the case or the right to remain silent or to stop the questioning during the trial. Because of this case, there is now what is known as the "Miranda Warnings". These state "that you have the right to remain silent; that anything you say may be used as evidence against you; that you may request the presence of an attorney, either retained by you or appointed by the court; and that you have the right, even after beginning to answer questions, to stop answering or request an attorney."

Important Terms: Double Jeopardy- the person who is tried for a crime and found not guilty may not be placed on jeopardy for a second time after being retired for the same crime. Miranda was put on trial more than once for the same crime, but they didn't count it as an offical jeopardy.

external image mrianda.jpg