Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

Background Summary and Questions

Ernesto Miranda was a poor Mexican immigrant living in Phoenix, Arizona in 1963. A Phoenix woman was kidnapped and raped. She identified Miranda in a police lineup. Miranda was arrested, charged with the crimes, and questioned by the police for two hours. The police officers questioning him did not inform him of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination or of his Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of an attorney. The Fifth Amendment states that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. . . .” The Sixth Amendment states that, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”In 1965, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear Miranda’s case. At the same time, the Court agreed to hear three similar cases. The Court combined all the cases into one case. Since Miranda was listed first among the four cases considered by the Court, the decision came to be known by that name. The decision in Miranda v.Arizona was handed down in 1966.

1 –  Additional information on the case found at “Wikipedia.com”  - Miranda v. Arizona – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2 - The 5th Amendment states:No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

3 – The 6th Amendment states: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have theAssistance of Counsel for his defence. 

4 – Additional reading to help you at “about.com”  - Miranda: Rights of Silence 

Assignment

Questions to Complete:

1)    What rights of the accused does the Fifth Amendment protect? The Sixth Amendment? 

2)    If the police had informed Ernesto Miranda of these rights, do you think he might have done anything differently? 

3)    Individual rights must be balanced against the values of society at large. For instance, the right to free speech must be balanced against our desire for an orderly society. This is why demonstrations, while protected by the First Amendment, can have certain restrictions placed on them. In Miranda, what values or goals of society must be balanced against the right against self-incrimination and the right to counsel? 

4)    You are probably learning about the rights of the accused in a government or history class. Some would argue that it is the individual’s responsibility to know what his or her rights are under the Constitution, and the government can assume that accused persons know their rights without informing them after they are arrested. Do you think the government should have to inform each individual who is arrested of his or her rights? Why or why not?

In addition to this I would like for you to print out and complete the following chart to hand in:

 Controversy Over the Court’s Decision, Miranda v. Arizona, Landmark Supreme Court Cases

 

I would also like a one page typed reflection paper on “Miranda Rights. “

 

 

 

~ by andrewmolinari on March 24, 2008.