Miranda V. Arizona
Who?
Petinior- Ernesto Miranda
- Age: 22-34
- Born: March 9, 1941, in Arizona
- Died: January 31, 1972
- Career: Several low-wage jobs
The United States Supreme Court
- Earl Warren (Majority)
- Hugo Black (Majority)
- William O. Douglas (Majority)
- William J. Brennan Jr. (Majority)
- Aba Fortes (Majority)
- John Marshall Harlan (Minority)
- Potter Stewart (Minority)
- Bryon White (Minority)
- Tom C. Clark (Minority)
Victim
- Trish Weir (18)
What?
A landmark U.S. Supreme Court case where the defendant argued that his constitutional right was stripped away because he was not informed that he had the right to an attorney/ to stay silent in legal matters.
When?
Crime- March 1963
Argued- February and March, 1966
Ruled- June 1966
Where?
Crime- Phoenix, Arizona
Final Ruling- Washington, DC
Why?
As Miranda did not know the victim before the abduction, it is thought that the crime was committed purely due to sexual aggression.
March 1963
Miranda commits his crime in Arizona
March 13, 1963
Miranda is arrested
March 27, 1963
Miranda is denied legal representation in the interrogation room
Juen 12, 1963
Miranda was found guilty of rape and kidnapping
February 28, 1966
Miranda goes before the United States Supreme Court
June 1966
Miranda wins the case, placing the “Miranda Warning” intact
Background-
The case began in 1963 when Ernesto Miranda kidnapped and sexually assaulted an 18-year-old woman walking on the street of Phoenix, Arizona. The woman survived and left, alerting the police, and while Miranda was already a suspect because of his criminal background, he was arrested when the brother of the victim recognized Miranda’s car from his sister’s description. When he was arrested in 1963, he was unaware of his constitutional right to have a lawyer present in legal situations, or of his right to remain silent. Not only was he unaware, but the officers also failed to inform him of his rights during his arrest.
Because of this, he was interrogated for over two hours with no legal representation, leading him to confess verbally and in writing that he was guilty of the abduction of the woman and of a robbery that occurred in the past. When his written confession of the crime was shown to the court, the defense argued that, since Miranda did not know of his rights or that his signature would be presented to the court, it should not be held against him.
Court Decision
Their request to exclude the confession was overruled, and Miranda was sentenced to 20-30 years in prison for both of his charges. Eventually, an appeal was filed with the United States Supreme Court, and in 1966, the court ruled 5-4 in Miranda’s favor, confirming that his rights had been stripped away by the lack of legal representation.
Key Question-
Since Miranda did not have a legal representative during his interrogation, was his Fifth Amendment right violated?
Significance-
This Supreme Court case is especially important to society because, without it, the “Miranda Warning” (legal law requiring officers to inform the accused of their rights to an attorney/ amendment rights) would not exist, and would therefore cause significant bias in the Justice system. The ruling remains one of the most influential cases in history and is often cited in subsequent cases.
Personal Comment- This case stood out to me for how the crime itself was not the primary factor in its importance, but rather what makes it remembered is how the Justice system responded to it. The government put an emphasis on the individual rights granted by the constitution, and while maintaining a stable system is incredibly important, not prioritizing punishment for one’s action feels counterintuitive to me on an emotional level. Because of this, I have mixed feelings on the cases, but, nonetheless, this reinstation of constitutional rights was significant in matters of law.