SUPREME COURT

CASE:

MIRANDA V. ARIZONA

B Y : NO A H J A

M E S

STANDARDSSCG16 The student will demonstrate

knowledge of the operation of the federal judiciary

BACKGROUND CHECK• Ernesto Miranda: poor man who lived in the

state of Arizona.• Already convicted of several crimes, and

was arrested once again off of an accusation that he committed a crime against her.

• Officers didn’t inform him of his 5th and 6th amendment rights (self-incrimination and right to an attorney)

• Local courts found him guilty from a confession, sentencing him to 20 – 30 years in prison, but Miranda’s lawyer appealed to the Supreme Court of Arizona.

• Supreme Court of Arizona decided to deny his appeal, so they appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

THE FINAL VERDICT• After many appeals, the U.S.

Supreme Court finally decided in favor of Ernesto Miranda.

• In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that Ernesto Miranda was to be dropped from all charges, as he was not informed of his 5th amendment and 6th amendment upon arrest and that he understood his rights.

• He was not informed that he had the right not to testify against himself, and the right to an attorney at any point before and during the interrogation process.

SIGNIFICANCE• Supreme Court’s decision made reciting the 5th and 6th amendments a

routine part of every arrest. Gaining the nickname “Miranda Rights” or “Mirandizing someone, is reciting those rights to a person who is elected.

• If someone isn’t read their Miranda rights today, they technically cannot be tried in a court of law.