Miranda v. Arizona case brief summary
384 U.S. 436 (1966)
DISCUSSION
The United States Supreme Court reversed the judgment of three cases, and affirmed the fourth. When an individual was taken into custody and subjected to questioning, the U.S. Constitutional Amendment V privilege against self-incrimination was jeopardized. To protect the privilege, procedural safeguards were required. A defendant was required to be warned before questioning that he had the right to remain silent, and that anything he said can be used against him in a court of law. A defendant was required to be told that he had the right to the presence of an attorney, and if he cannot afford an attorney one was to be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desired. After these warnings were given, a defendant could knowingly and intelligently waive these rights and agree to answer questions or make a statement. Evidence obtained as a result of interrogation was not to be used against a defendant at trial unless the prosecution demonstrated the warnings were given, and knowingly and intelligently waived. Effective waiver required that the accused was offered counsel but intelligently and understandingly rejected the offer. Presuming waiver from a silent record was impermissible.
CONCLUSION
Three cases were reversed and one was affirmed.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Procedure Criminal Procedure: Examples & Explanations, Sixth Edition
Emanuel Law Outline: Criminal Procedure
384 U.S. 436 (1966)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Certiorari was granted to review a
judgment from the Supreme Court of Arizona for this and three other
similar cases, to determine the admissibility of statements obtained
from defendant, who was subjected to custodial police interrogation,
and the necessity for procedures assuring that defendant was accorded
his privilege under the U.S. Constitutional Amendment V not
to be compelled to incriminate himself.DISCUSSION
The United States Supreme Court reversed the judgment of three cases, and affirmed the fourth. When an individual was taken into custody and subjected to questioning, the U.S. Constitutional Amendment V privilege against self-incrimination was jeopardized. To protect the privilege, procedural safeguards were required. A defendant was required to be warned before questioning that he had the right to remain silent, and that anything he said can be used against him in a court of law. A defendant was required to be told that he had the right to the presence of an attorney, and if he cannot afford an attorney one was to be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desired. After these warnings were given, a defendant could knowingly and intelligently waive these rights and agree to answer questions or make a statement. Evidence obtained as a result of interrogation was not to be used against a defendant at trial unless the prosecution demonstrated the warnings were given, and knowingly and intelligently waived. Effective waiver required that the accused was offered counsel but intelligently and understandingly rejected the offer. Presuming waiver from a silent record was impermissible.
CONCLUSION
Three cases were reversed and one was affirmed.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Procedure Criminal Procedure: Examples & Explanations, Sixth Edition
Emanuel Law Outline: Criminal Procedure
No comments:
Post a Comment