Miranda+vs.+Arizona

Miranda V. Arizona

The Miranda V/s Arizona case deals with the 14th amendment and the 5th amendment. The 14th amendment is an amendment is basically to keep freed slaves free. The 5th amendment is when under arrest the police need to read you your list of rights. The Miranda V. Arizona case is mainly about a man got in trouble for rape and he also confessed to it and the court couldn’t use it against him because they didn’t read him his rights. So Miranda got away with it all because of the 5th amendment. In the Miranda V. Arizona the Supreme Court said they couldn’t use any of the evidence against him and had to let him get away with it all. That’s what happened in the Miranda V. Arizona case. And the affect the Supreme Court had on the case.

Cj Mallery

The fifth and sixth Amendments are involved in the court, Miranda v. Arizona. The Fifth Amendment gives criminal suspect the right to remain silent and not be a witness to himself. The sixth amendment gives criminal suspect the right to a lawyer.
 * //What amendment did he violate? He violated the 5th amendment. The 5th amendment protects against the governmen. It it also authorities in legal Procedure.//**
 * //Do you want to know the backround of the case?He was in his home when the police got their and was sent from their to prison. At the court he did have a lawyer. Miranda was only 23 and had a 20year sentence. He said that “any statement he made may be used against him”.//****//What was the courts final decision? The court decided to overturn his conviction. He can`t communicate with the world. He had full knowledge of his legal rights. He was found guilty and sent to prison and didnt It include double jeopardy.//**
 * //Brandon Ferrante//**
 * //Ashley Meck's://**

Miranda v. Arizona start in 1963 in Phoenix when Ernesto Miranda who was arrested for rape, kidnapping, and robbery without being told his rights. He confessed to the crimes and was conficted. His lawyer appealed to Arizona Supreme Court, but they agreed with the confiction.

They then appealed the U.S. Supreme Court and they decided his rights were refused and his confessio could not be used. He was later retried and found guilty without the confession.