BackgrounDexternal image ernesto_miranda.jpg
external image 081508-sc5-200.jpg

Miranda vs. Arizona is a case that was argued Feburary 28th thru March 2nd 1966. The petitioner of this case was Ernesto Miranda and the respondant was The state of Arizona. The argument in this case was that upon arrest Miranda wasn’t read his right to remain silent or his right to counsel or the law about self incrimination that is stated in the fifth amendment

In the Constitution it directly refers to self incrimination stating “Nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” That means that Miranda could have refused to give information that could make his verdict come back guilty. This was violated because Miranda wasn’t aware of his right to remain silent.

The decision in this case was 5 votes for Miranda and 4 votes against Miranda. After he appealed his conviction the Supreme Court ruled his rights had been violated. Miranda’s case set the precedent for many other cases because his showed how your rights can and would be violated. So now anyone with a similar case will get the same ruling.It forced law officials to strictly follow and obey the laws when detaining a suspect.
- someone who petitions a court for redress of a grievance or recovery of a right
Miranda Rights- rights read by an officer to a person in custody before they are interrogated.