Miranda_Rights

Ernesto Miranda was a Mexican immigrant who lived in Arizona in 1963. He was no stranger to the law and how it worked. As a young child with the death of his mother Miranda turned to crime as a way out. On March 13, 1963 he was arrested at his home and taken into custody by the Phoenix police station. He was accused of kidnapping and rape of a young women. While at the police station he was placed in a line up and identified as the man who raped her. Miranda was told he was identified and was taking to an interrogation room by two officers. Here he was questioned for two hours. Miranda signed a statement confessing to the kidnapping and rape. At the top of this statement was a typed paragraph stating that the confession was made voluntarily, without promises of immunity and with “ full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me.” At the trail the written confession was admitted into evidence over the objection of defense counsel. The arresting officers testified to the oral confession given by Miranda. Miranda was convicted of kidnapping and rape. He was sentenced to 20-30 years to run concurrently. Miranda appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of Arizona said that his rights had not been violated in obtaining the confession or giving the convictions. The Supreme Court also emphasized the fact that Miranda did not specifically request counsel. Miranda then took his case to the National Courts. His first appeal was rejected for minor mistakes in the paper work. Unknown to Miranda the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) had captured the attention of his case. They contacted Miranda and informed him that they had a good chance in the U.S. Supreme Court. It took almost a year for the case to finally be seen in the court. This gave his two new lawyers time to prepare for the case. The court saw that Miranda’s rights were violated and overturned his conviction. Miranda was not told that he had the right to remain silent and that anything you say may be held against you in the court of law. He was not told of the right to counsel and that if he could not afford one, one would be appointed to him prior to questioning if he desired. Miranda’s right of the fifth and six amendments were violated. In the Constitution of the United States it says we have the right to remain silent against the giving of incriminating evidence and the right to have an attorney present, be explained to us before any questioning can occur. It was clear that Miranda was not in any way informed of his rights not to incriminate himself, neither was his right to counsel or to have one present during the interrogation. He was not protected in any other way either. The court held that the typed in clause that Miranda had full knowledge of his legal rights did not approach the knowing and intelligent waiver required to relinquish his constitutional rights. The court also said that the fifth and six amendments are not mutually exclusive rights. They may over lap in some instances, and protect the interest of the accused in an interrogation. I fell the cops should have done a better job as to find incrmanating evidence instead of just looking at his record and useing his testimomiy.They were so quick to convict him that they did not do their job correct.