In miranda v. arizona, the united states supreme court declared that
|
LandmarkCases.org got a makeover! As part of this update, all LandmarkCases.org accounts have been taken out of service. Show
To access "Answers & Differentiation Ideas," users must now use a Street Law Store account. If you don’t have one already, it’s free and easy to sign up. It will also give you access to hundreds of additional resources and Supreme Court case summaries! We apologize for any inconvenience, but hope that having only one Street Law account to remember will make your life easier. You can reach us at [email protected] with any questions 
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Self-Incrimination, Due Process The Cases
Overview“. . . the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.” Chief Justice Earl Warren, speaking for the majority This case explores the legal concepts of self-incrimination and due process. Ernesto Miranda was arrested after a victim identified him as her assailant. The police officers who questioned 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. He confessed to the crime, however, his attorney later argued that his confession should not have been used at his trial. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed, deciding that the police had not taken proper steps to inform Miranda of his constitutional rights. For StudentsThis section is for students. Use the links below to download classroom-ready .PDFs of case resources and activities.About the Case Full Case SummariesA thorough summary of case facts, issues, relevant constitutional provisions/statutes/precedents, arguments for each side, decision, and case impact.
Case Background and VocabularyImportant background information and related vocabulary terms.
Visuals
Decision
The Case
After the Case
For TeachersThis section is for teachers.Use the links below to access:
(Learn more about Street Law's commitment and approach to quality curriculum.) About the Case
Learning Activities The Case
After the Case
Teacher Resources Teaching Strategies Used
Landmark Cases GlossaryThe LandmarkCases.org glossary compiles all of the important vocab terms from case materials. It is provided as a view-only Google Sheet. Glossary Planning Time and ActivitiesIf you have one day . . .
If you have two days . . . Note to teachers: We recommend that you invite a community resource person, such as a police officer, judge, or lawyer, to assist in the activities described here for day three. Many of the scenarios are tricky and the answers can depend upon the nuances of state law. What did the Supreme Court decide in Miranda v Arizona?At trial, the oral and written confessions were presented to the jury. Miranda was found guilty of kidnapping and rape and was sentenced to 20-30 years imprisonment on each count. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona held that Miranda's constitutional rights were not violated in obtaining the confession.
What did the Supreme Court decide in Miranda v Arizona quizlet?In Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the Supreme Court ruled that detained criminal suspects, prior to police questioning, must be informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and against self-incrimination.
How did the Supreme Court rule in the Miranda decision Brainly?The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, ruled that the prosecution could not introduce Miranda's confession as evidence in a criminal trial because the police had failed to first inform Miranda of his right to an attorney and against self-incrimination.
|
