When was the miranda's v arizona argued 200 words

2

When the Case was argued

Inez Parrish

CJA/364

Jonathan Kingsbury

May 28, 2014

U.S. Supreme Court

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)

Miranda v. Arizona

No. 759

Argued February 28-March 1, 1966

The oral argument took place on February 28, 1966. A decision was issued June 13, 1966. The Supreme Court heard the argument of the case of Miranda V. Arizona, concerning the Fifth Amendment rights of Ernesto Miranda. Mr. Ernesto did sign a confession of kidnapping and rape without being informed of his constitutional rights to remain silent, and his 6th amendment of right to counsel to have a lawyer present when question, are to have the court appoint an attorney for those who cannot afford to pay for one .The Supreme court decided Miranda’s V. Arizona with three others consolidated case Westover. V. United States Virginia V .New York, and California V. Steward. In this argued situation the police violated Miranda’s rights of the Fifth Amendment. Also Arizona ignored both the Escobedo rule (evidence obtained from an illegally obtained inadmissible in court) and the Gideon rule all felony defendant and should be thrown out. His conviction was faulty and he deserved a new trial. For Arizona Ernesto Miranda was no stranger to police procedures he negotiated with police officers with intelligence and understanding. Therefore the prosecution was proper, his conviction was based on Arizona law, and his imprisonment was just. The Supreme Court should up hold his conviction and should not further cripple the work of police.

In each of these cases, the defendant, while in police custody, was questioned by police officers, detectives, or a prosecuting attorney in a room in which he was cut off from the outside world. None of the defendants was given a full and effective warning of his rights at the outset of the interrogation process. In all four cases, the questioning elicited oral admissions, and, in three of them, signed statements as well, which were admitted at their trials. All defendants were convicted, and all convictions, except in No. 584, were affirmed on appeal. Therefore the prosecution may not use statement, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way, unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination. 

Also, the atmosphere and environment of incommunicado interrogation as it exists today is inherently intimidating, and works to undermine the privilege against self-incrimination. Unless adequate preventive measures are taken to dispel the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings, no statement obtained from the defendant can truly be the product of his free choice. The privilege against self-incrimination, which has had a long and expansive historical development, is the essential mainstay of our adversary system, and guarantees to the individual the "right to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of his own will," during a period of custodial interrogation as well as in the courts or during the course of other official investigations. Chief Justice Warren delivered the opinion of the Court. The cases before us raise questions which go to the roots of our concepts of American criminal jurisprudence: the restraints society must observe consistent with the Federal Constitution in prosecuting individuals for crime.

Reference:

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/384/436/case.html

http://www.c-span.org/video/?59250-1/miranda-v-arizonaargument