Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Miranda v arizona joy taylor


Published on

American Government Supreme Court case

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Miranda v arizona joy taylor

  1. 1. Miranda v. Arizona Joy Taylor 2nd black 3/24/16
  2. 2. Background The Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona addressed four different cases involving custodial interrogations. 1. Mr. Miranda was interrogated by two police officers for several hours. They did not state his rights. At the end of the interrogation Mr. Miranda signed a statement confessing his crimes and also signed that he was aware of his rights.
  3. 3. Background The second Defendant, Michael Vignera was arrested for robbery. Mr. Vignera orally admitted to the robbery to the first officer after the arrest, and he was held in detention for eight hours before he made an admission to an assistant district attorney. There was no evidence that he was notified of his Fifth Amendment constitutional rights.
  4. 4. Background The third Defendant, Carl Calvin Westover, was arrested for two robberies. Mr. Westover was questioned over fourteen hours by local police, and then was handed to Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) agents, who were able to get signed confessions from Mr. Westover. The authorities did not notify Mr. Westover of his Fifth Amendment constitutional rights.
  5. 5. Background The fourth Defendant, Roy Allen Stewart was arrested, along with members of his family (although there was no evidence of any wrongdoing by his family) for a series of purse snatches. There was no evidence that Mr. Stewart was notified of his rights. After nine interrogations, Mr. Stewart admitted to the crimes.
  6. 6. Decision The supreme Court riled 5-4 in favor of Mr. Miranda.
  7. 7. Significance This decision gave rise to what has become known as the Miranda Warning. While jurisdictions have their own regulations as to the precise warning given to a person interrogated in police custody, the typical warning states.