Miranda v arizona (1966)
•Download as PPT, PDF•
1 like•1,085 views
Miranda was interrogated by police for two hours without being informed of his constitutional rights against self-incrimination and to legal counsel, resulting in him confessing to the crimes charged. His confession was appealed on the grounds that his rights were violated, but the appeal was denied and his conviction upheld. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled 5-4 in favor of Miranda, concluding that defendants in custody must be informed of their rights before interrogation to protect against self-incrimination.
Report
Share
Report
Share
![Brief summery ,[object Object]]()
Recommended
Miranda vs arizona presentation
Miranda v. Arizona established that the police must inform suspects of their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and their Sixth Amendment right to an attorney before questioning. Ernesto Miranda was interrogated by police for two hours without being informed of his rights and confessed to rape and kidnapping. His confession was allowed at trial, but the Supreme Court ultimately ruled 5-4 that his confession should have been excluded because he was not informed of his constitutional rights prior to questioning.
Miranada V Arizona(2)
1) The Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona addressed whether police must inform suspects of their rights before questioning.
2) The Court ruled that police must inform suspects that they have the right to remain silent and have an attorney present during questioning.
3) Failure of police to inform suspects of their Miranda rights could result in any confession being excluded from trial.
Miranda Vs. Arizona
Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and rape and interrogated without being informed of his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination or his right to an attorney. The Supreme Court overturned Miranda's confession in a 5-4 decision, establishing that individuals in custody must be informed of their Miranda rights before interrogation. This included the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. The decision had a lasting impact by establishing Miranda warnings that must be given before questioning by police.
Miranda v. arizona
Ernesto Miranda was arrested in 1963 and questioned by police for two hours without being informed of his constitutional rights to remain silent and have an attorney present. Miranda confessed during the interrogation and was convicted based on this confession. He appealed his case to the Supreme Court, arguing his confession should be inadmissible since he was not informed of his rights. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled Miranda's confession could not be used against him since police failed to inform him of his rights, establishing the Miranda rights that police must inform suspects of their right to remain silent and have an attorney present during questioning.
Mapp v. ohio
The police searched Mapp's home without a warrant and found pornographic materials. She was charged with possession of obscene materials. Mapp argued the evidence was obtained illegally without a warrant and should not be allowed in court. The Supreme Court ruled the 4th Amendment applies to states, so evidence from unreasonable searches cannot be used in court. This established the exclusionary rule under Mapp v. Ohio in 1961.
Fourth Amendment notes
This document summarizes key aspects of the 4th Amendment regarding search and seizure. It outlines the differences between probable cause and reasonable suspicion, with probable cause requiring a likelihood of criminal activity and reasonable suspicion only requiring articulable facts. It also discusses allowable warrantless searches incident to arrest, with consent, or in hot pursuit. The document notes that while racial profiling is not official policy, some believe it occurs unofficially when race rather than evidence prompts police action.
Bush vs gore
In the 2000 US presidential election, George W. Bush initially appeared to have won the state of Florida, but the margin was so close that a recount was ordered. Bush petitioned to stop the recount, arguing it violated equal protection. The US Supreme Court ruled in Bush's favor, stopping the recount and allowing Bush to claim the presidency. This demonstrated the Court's jurisdiction over state courts in electoral matters.
Mapp v ohio..
The document summarizes the Supreme Court case Mapp v. Ohio. Dollree Mapp was accused of possessing obscene materials in Ohio. The police entered her home without a search warrant and found the materials. Mapp argued her 4th Amendment rights were violated as the evidence was obtained illegally. The Supreme Court agreed, finding the evidence inadmissible due to the unconstitutional search and seizure.
Recommended
Miranda vs arizona presentation
Miranda v. Arizona established that the police must inform suspects of their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and their Sixth Amendment right to an attorney before questioning. Ernesto Miranda was interrogated by police for two hours without being informed of his rights and confessed to rape and kidnapping. His confession was allowed at trial, but the Supreme Court ultimately ruled 5-4 that his confession should have been excluded because he was not informed of his constitutional rights prior to questioning.
Miranada V Arizona(2)
1) The Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona addressed whether police must inform suspects of their rights before questioning.
2) The Court ruled that police must inform suspects that they have the right to remain silent and have an attorney present during questioning.
3) Failure of police to inform suspects of their Miranda rights could result in any confession being excluded from trial.
Miranda Vs. Arizona
Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and rape and interrogated without being informed of his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination or his right to an attorney. The Supreme Court overturned Miranda's confession in a 5-4 decision, establishing that individuals in custody must be informed of their Miranda rights before interrogation. This included the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. The decision had a lasting impact by establishing Miranda warnings that must be given before questioning by police.
Miranda v. arizona
Ernesto Miranda was arrested in 1963 and questioned by police for two hours without being informed of his constitutional rights to remain silent and have an attorney present. Miranda confessed during the interrogation and was convicted based on this confession. He appealed his case to the Supreme Court, arguing his confession should be inadmissible since he was not informed of his rights. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled Miranda's confession could not be used against him since police failed to inform him of his rights, establishing the Miranda rights that police must inform suspects of their right to remain silent and have an attorney present during questioning.
Mapp v. ohio
The police searched Mapp's home without a warrant and found pornographic materials. She was charged with possession of obscene materials. Mapp argued the evidence was obtained illegally without a warrant and should not be allowed in court. The Supreme Court ruled the 4th Amendment applies to states, so evidence from unreasonable searches cannot be used in court. This established the exclusionary rule under Mapp v. Ohio in 1961.
Fourth Amendment notes
This document summarizes key aspects of the 4th Amendment regarding search and seizure. It outlines the differences between probable cause and reasonable suspicion, with probable cause requiring a likelihood of criminal activity and reasonable suspicion only requiring articulable facts. It also discusses allowable warrantless searches incident to arrest, with consent, or in hot pursuit. The document notes that while racial profiling is not official policy, some believe it occurs unofficially when race rather than evidence prompts police action.
Bush vs gore
In the 2000 US presidential election, George W. Bush initially appeared to have won the state of Florida, but the margin was so close that a recount was ordered. Bush petitioned to stop the recount, arguing it violated equal protection. The US Supreme Court ruled in Bush's favor, stopping the recount and allowing Bush to claim the presidency. This demonstrated the Court's jurisdiction over state courts in electoral matters.
Mapp v ohio..
The document summarizes the Supreme Court case Mapp v. Ohio. Dollree Mapp was accused of possessing obscene materials in Ohio. The police entered her home without a search warrant and found the materials. Mapp argued her 4th Amendment rights were violated as the evidence was obtained illegally. The Supreme Court agreed, finding the evidence inadmissible due to the unconstitutional search and seizure.
Inchoate offense
This document discusses inchoate offenses such as incitement, solicitation, conspiracy, and attempt. It defines these offenses and outlines their key elements. For conspiracy, it describes types of conspiracies like wheel and chain conspiracies. It also discusses grading of inchoate offenses and conditions that can negate criminal liability for attempt. Famous conspiracy cases from early 20th century India are also listed.
LLB LAW NOTES ON CRIMINOLOGY AND PENOLOGY
LLB LAW NOTES ON CRIMINOLOGY AND PENOLOGY
FREE AFFIDAVITS AND NOTICES FORMATS
FREE AGREEMENTS AND CONTRACTS FORMATS
FREE LLB LAW NOTES
FREE CA ICWA NOTES
FREE LLB LAW FIRST SEM NOTES
FREE LLB LAW SECOND SEM NOTES
FREE LLB LAW THIRD SEM NOTES
FREE LLB LAW FOURTH SEM NOTES
FREE LLB LAW FIFTH SEM NOTES
FREE LLB LAW SIXTH SEM NOTES
FREE CA ICWA FOUNDATION NOTES
FREE CA ICWA INTERMEDIATE NOTES
FREE CA ICWA FINAL NOTES
KANOON KE RAKHWALE INDIA
HIRE LAWYER ONLINE
LAW FIRMS IN DELHI
CA FIRM DELHI
VISIT : https://www.kanoonkerakhwale.com/
VISIT : https://hirelawyeronline.com/
Case Analysis-Noida double murder case
The case analysis of the double murder of Aarushi Talwar,14 year old girl and a domestic help Hemraj by the parents of the deceased Aarushi-Dr.Rajesh Talwar and Dr.Nupur
Talwar.
Court formats
This include some important formats applicable in Indian courts and is very essential for Law Students.
These formats may even be translated to the local (scheduled) indian languages and may be used in the respective courts.
All About Miranda Rights
The document discusses the Miranda rights and how they apply when a suspect is questioned by police. It explains that under Miranda v. Arizona, police must inform suspects of their right to remain silent and have an attorney present before questioning if the suspect is in custody. A suspect is in custody if arrested or their freedom of movement is restricted to the degree of a formal arrest. To invoke the right to remain silent, the suspect must unambiguously state they do not want to speak to officers. Failure of police to provide Miranda warnings means any statements and related evidence cannot be used against the suspect in court.
Appeals
This document summarizes key aspects of appeals under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) in India. It notes that:
1) The CPC does not define "appeal" but it is generally understood to be an application to a higher court asking to reverse a lower court's decision.
2) Section 96 of the CPC governs appeals from decrees of courts exercising original jurisdiction, except for appeals from High Court original side decrees which are governed by Letters Patent.
3) An appeal is allowed against any decree from a court of original jurisdiction, including ex-parte decrees, but not consent decrees. No appeal is allowed for petty cases unless a question of law arises.
Final moot problem 2012
The document summarizes a moot court competition problem regarding two writ petitions filed in the Supreme Court of India. The first petition challenges provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act that criminalize poverty and led to the arrest of a widow and her children. The second petition seeks a declaration that the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers Act applies uniformly across India to rehabilitate and support manual scavengers like the widow. Both petitions will be argued at a final hearing where all questions of law and maintainability will be considered.
Negligence
Negligence refers to the failure to exercise reasonable care that results in harm to another person. There are two theories of negligence - the subjective theory which views negligence as a state of mind, and the objective theory which is now generally accepted and views negligence as a failure to meet the standard of a reasonable person. To prove negligence, a plaintiff must show that the defendant owed them a duty of care, that duty was breached, injury resulted, and the breach caused the injury. There are tests to determine if a duty of care exists between the parties, such as foreseeability of harm, proximity of the relationship, and whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose liability. Professionals may have a higher standard of
1.1b the elements of crime
Here are three key points to consider in your essay:
1. The criminal justice system aims to balance protecting society, punishing offenders, and supporting victims. However, these aims can sometimes conflict with each other.
2. The rights of victims include seeking justice and compensation/support. However, punishing offenders too severely could infringe on their rights. Rehabilitation aims to reduce reoffending while also protecting society.
3. Society has a right to feel safe and secure. However, over-punishing may undermine this if it breeds further social problems rather than preventing crime. There are also costs to taxpayers to consider.
Some other factors to discuss could include the role of deterrence, proportionality of sentences,
Presentation on a Famous Legal Case: Miranda vs. Arizona
As part of Grade 12 Canadian & International Law, I created a presentation that outlined the details and significance of the famous case of "Miranda vs. Arizona" (the case that is responsible for the right to remain silent, request an attorney etc).
Petitioner side m.pasanithi converted
This document is a memorial submitted to the Madras High Court on behalf of the petitioner in a case involving charges under Sections 302, 304, 498(a) of the Indian Penal Code. The memorial outlines the facts of the case where the deceased Swarna Sujith allegedly committed suicide by self-immolation and later died from her injuries, accusing her husband Rajeev Kanna and mother-in-law of setting her on fire. It raises three issues for consideration regarding Swarna's mental state and whether she was provoked, whether she was tortured and demanded dowry, and whether the charges against Rajeev and his mother are appropriate. The memorial provides laws, jurisdictions, arguments and a prayer on behalf of
Case Study:- Jesssica Lal Murder Case (Manu Sharma Vs State(NCT of Delhi)
Case Study:-
Jesssica Lal Murder Case
(Manu Sharma Vs State(NCT of Delhi)
Introduction:-
Jessica Lal (5 January 1965 – 30 April 1999) was a model in New Delhi who was working as a celebrity barmaid at a crowded socialite party when she was shot dead at around 2 am on 30 April 1999. Dozens of witnesses pointed to Siddharth Vashisht, also known as Manu Sharma, the son of Venod Sharma, a wealthy and influential Congress-nominated Member of Parliament from Haryana, as the murderer.
In the ensuing trial, Manu Sharma and a number of others were acquitted on 21 February 2006.
Following intense media and public pressure, the prosecution appealed and the Delhi High Court conducted proceedings on a fast track with daily hearings conducted over 25 days. The trial court judgment was overturned, and Manu Sharma was found guilty of having murdered Lal. He was sentenced to life imprisonment on 20 Decesmber 2006.
Indian penal code: Private defence
The document discusses the case of Arun v. State of Maharashtra, where Arun appealed his conviction for murder and other offenses against his brother Sampatrao. It provides background on the family dispute and details of the incident where Arun attacked Sampatrao with a hammer and brick. The Supreme Court considered Arun's argument that he was exercising his right to private defense, though it ultimately dismissed his appeal based on eyewitness testimony finding his actions were not justified.
Presentation on Mens-rea
The document defines mens rea as the mental element necessary to constitute criminal liability. Mens rea literally means "guilty mind" and refers to the intention to do a forbidden act. For criminal liability to attach, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had mens rea. Exceptions to the mens rea requirement exist for offenses of public nuisance and those enacted to enforce civil rights. The document further explores key forms of mens rea like intention, recklessness, and negligence and how they are applied under Indian law based on court precedents. General exceptions to mens rea are also discussed relating to accidents, unsoundness of mind, intoxication, and for minors.
Legal persons
- An idol is considered a juristic person under law and can own property. The property of a temple vests with the idol, which is represented by a pujari or guardian.
- The Supreme Court has held that an idol is a juristic person capable of holding property and being taxed through its shebait.
- While a Lahore High Court considered a mosque a juristic person, the Privy Council overturned this, stating there is no analogy between an idol and a mosque.
- The Supreme Court also held that the Guru Granth Sahib is a legal person for Sikhs, as it is their holy text and nucleus of the Gurudwara, though other religious
Search And Sezuire Powerpoint
The document discusses the importance of the Fourth Amendment and its protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. It provides examples of what constitutes a reasonable versus unreasonable search in both public and private schools. A reasonable search in public schools requires probable cause, a warrant, or reasonable suspicion of violation of law or school rules. Random searches of purses, lockers, and drug testing of students involved in extracurricular activities have generally been allowed. Private school students have no constitutional protections against searches.
CRPC PPT
The document discusses the processes of investigation and trial of offences in India. It explains that the police register an FIR and conduct investigations upon receiving information about a cognizable offence. The police then files a police report with the statements and evidence collected before the local magistrate. The magistrate can then take cognizance of the case and either discharge the accused or frame charges and set a date to begin the trial and examination of prosecution and defense witnesses. After considering all evidence presented, the magistrate will then deliver a verdict of acquittal or conviction and determine the sentence if the accused is found guilty.
Protection of witness;comparitive study
This document provides an overview of witness protection laws in India and other countries. It begins with an introduction noting the lack of specific witness protection legislation in India. It then discusses hostile witnesses and landmark cases. Next, it examines legal provisions for witness protection in countries like Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan, and South Korea. The document outlines some provisions for witness protection under Indian law such as the Code of Criminal Procedure and anti-terrorism laws. Finally, it discusses how protection of witnesses is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Indian Constitution.
Trial Tilak t 1897,1909, and 1916 sedition
Short View: This refers to the historic trial of Bal Gangadhar Tilak, a prominent Indian freedom fighter and nationalist leader, under charges of sedition and promoting enmity between different religious groups. The trial took place in 1908 during the British colonial rule in India. Tilak's trial became a significant event in the Indian independence movement and raised important legal and political issues related to freedom of speech, colonial oppression, and nationalist activism.
Bal Gangadhar Tilak also known as Lokmanya Tilak was a prominent Indian independence activist during the British colonial rule. During his lifetime among other Political cases Tilak had been tried for sedition in three times by British India Government-in 1897,1909, and 1916
State of Maharashtra Vs. Manesh madhusudan kotiyan
This memorial addresses three issues in a special leave petition filed before the Supreme Court of India regarding a criminal case. The first issue is whether the special leave petition is maintainable, arguing that there was no grave injustice or ignorance of substantial questions of law by the High Court. The second issue is whether consent was given voluntarily, arguing that consent was given freely without force or misconception. The third issue is whether the respondent is punishable for rape, arguing that the essential elements of rape were not met. The memorial provides arguments for each issue and submits that the petition should be dismissed.
Miranda v arizona (1966)
Miranda v Arizona established that individuals in police custody must be informed of their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and Sixth Amendment right to legal counsel before being interrogated. Ernesto Miranda was convicted based on a confession obtained without being informed of these rights. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Miranda, concluding that defendants under arrest must be notified of their constitutional protections against self-incrimination and right to an attorney before interrogation.
Miranda v arizona (1966)
Miranda v Arizona established that defendants must be informed of their 5th and 6th amendment rights against self-incrimination and to legal counsel before being interrogated by police while in custody. Miranda was interrogated without being informed of these rights and confessed, but his attorney argued the confession should be excluded as it was obtained illegally. The Supreme Court agreed in a 5-4 decision, ruling that Miranda's rights had been violated when he was not notified of his constitutional protections prior to questioning.
More Related Content
What's hot
Inchoate offense
This document discusses inchoate offenses such as incitement, solicitation, conspiracy, and attempt. It defines these offenses and outlines their key elements. For conspiracy, it describes types of conspiracies like wheel and chain conspiracies. It also discusses grading of inchoate offenses and conditions that can negate criminal liability for attempt. Famous conspiracy cases from early 20th century India are also listed.
LLB LAW NOTES ON CRIMINOLOGY AND PENOLOGY
LLB LAW NOTES ON CRIMINOLOGY AND PENOLOGY
FREE AFFIDAVITS AND NOTICES FORMATS
FREE AGREEMENTS AND CONTRACTS FORMATS
FREE LLB LAW NOTES
FREE CA ICWA NOTES
FREE LLB LAW FIRST SEM NOTES
FREE LLB LAW SECOND SEM NOTES
FREE LLB LAW THIRD SEM NOTES
FREE LLB LAW FOURTH SEM NOTES
FREE LLB LAW FIFTH SEM NOTES
FREE LLB LAW SIXTH SEM NOTES
FREE CA ICWA FOUNDATION NOTES
FREE CA ICWA INTERMEDIATE NOTES
FREE CA ICWA FINAL NOTES
KANOON KE RAKHWALE INDIA
HIRE LAWYER ONLINE
LAW FIRMS IN DELHI
CA FIRM DELHI
VISIT : https://www.kanoonkerakhwale.com/
VISIT : https://hirelawyeronline.com/
Case Analysis-Noida double murder case
The case analysis of the double murder of Aarushi Talwar,14 year old girl and a domestic help Hemraj by the parents of the deceased Aarushi-Dr.Rajesh Talwar and Dr.Nupur
Talwar.
Court formats
This include some important formats applicable in Indian courts and is very essential for Law Students.
These formats may even be translated to the local (scheduled) indian languages and may be used in the respective courts.
All About Miranda Rights
The document discusses the Miranda rights and how they apply when a suspect is questioned by police. It explains that under Miranda v. Arizona, police must inform suspects of their right to remain silent and have an attorney present before questioning if the suspect is in custody. A suspect is in custody if arrested or their freedom of movement is restricted to the degree of a formal arrest. To invoke the right to remain silent, the suspect must unambiguously state they do not want to speak to officers. Failure of police to provide Miranda warnings means any statements and related evidence cannot be used against the suspect in court.
Appeals
This document summarizes key aspects of appeals under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) in India. It notes that:
1) The CPC does not define "appeal" but it is generally understood to be an application to a higher court asking to reverse a lower court's decision.
2) Section 96 of the CPC governs appeals from decrees of courts exercising original jurisdiction, except for appeals from High Court original side decrees which are governed by Letters Patent.
3) An appeal is allowed against any decree from a court of original jurisdiction, including ex-parte decrees, but not consent decrees. No appeal is allowed for petty cases unless a question of law arises.
Final moot problem 2012
The document summarizes a moot court competition problem regarding two writ petitions filed in the Supreme Court of India. The first petition challenges provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act that criminalize poverty and led to the arrest of a widow and her children. The second petition seeks a declaration that the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers Act applies uniformly across India to rehabilitate and support manual scavengers like the widow. Both petitions will be argued at a final hearing where all questions of law and maintainability will be considered.
Negligence
Negligence refers to the failure to exercise reasonable care that results in harm to another person. There are two theories of negligence - the subjective theory which views negligence as a state of mind, and the objective theory which is now generally accepted and views negligence as a failure to meet the standard of a reasonable person. To prove negligence, a plaintiff must show that the defendant owed them a duty of care, that duty was breached, injury resulted, and the breach caused the injury. There are tests to determine if a duty of care exists between the parties, such as foreseeability of harm, proximity of the relationship, and whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose liability. Professionals may have a higher standard of
1.1b the elements of crime
Here are three key points to consider in your essay:
1. The criminal justice system aims to balance protecting society, punishing offenders, and supporting victims. However, these aims can sometimes conflict with each other.
2. The rights of victims include seeking justice and compensation/support. However, punishing offenders too severely could infringe on their rights. Rehabilitation aims to reduce reoffending while also protecting society.
3. Society has a right to feel safe and secure. However, over-punishing may undermine this if it breeds further social problems rather than preventing crime. There are also costs to taxpayers to consider.
Some other factors to discuss could include the role of deterrence, proportionality of sentences,
Presentation on a Famous Legal Case: Miranda vs. Arizona
As part of Grade 12 Canadian & International Law, I created a presentation that outlined the details and significance of the famous case of "Miranda vs. Arizona" (the case that is responsible for the right to remain silent, request an attorney etc).
Petitioner side m.pasanithi converted
This document is a memorial submitted to the Madras High Court on behalf of the petitioner in a case involving charges under Sections 302, 304, 498(a) of the Indian Penal Code. The memorial outlines the facts of the case where the deceased Swarna Sujith allegedly committed suicide by self-immolation and later died from her injuries, accusing her husband Rajeev Kanna and mother-in-law of setting her on fire. It raises three issues for consideration regarding Swarna's mental state and whether she was provoked, whether she was tortured and demanded dowry, and whether the charges against Rajeev and his mother are appropriate. The memorial provides laws, jurisdictions, arguments and a prayer on behalf of
Case Study:- Jesssica Lal Murder Case (Manu Sharma Vs State(NCT of Delhi)
Case Study:-
Jesssica Lal Murder Case
(Manu Sharma Vs State(NCT of Delhi)
Introduction:-
Jessica Lal (5 January 1965 – 30 April 1999) was a model in New Delhi who was working as a celebrity barmaid at a crowded socialite party when she was shot dead at around 2 am on 30 April 1999. Dozens of witnesses pointed to Siddharth Vashisht, also known as Manu Sharma, the son of Venod Sharma, a wealthy and influential Congress-nominated Member of Parliament from Haryana, as the murderer.
In the ensuing trial, Manu Sharma and a number of others were acquitted on 21 February 2006.
Following intense media and public pressure, the prosecution appealed and the Delhi High Court conducted proceedings on a fast track with daily hearings conducted over 25 days. The trial court judgment was overturned, and Manu Sharma was found guilty of having murdered Lal. He was sentenced to life imprisonment on 20 Decesmber 2006.
Indian penal code: Private defence
The document discusses the case of Arun v. State of Maharashtra, where Arun appealed his conviction for murder and other offenses against his brother Sampatrao. It provides background on the family dispute and details of the incident where Arun attacked Sampatrao with a hammer and brick. The Supreme Court considered Arun's argument that he was exercising his right to private defense, though it ultimately dismissed his appeal based on eyewitness testimony finding his actions were not justified.
Presentation on Mens-rea
The document defines mens rea as the mental element necessary to constitute criminal liability. Mens rea literally means "guilty mind" and refers to the intention to do a forbidden act. For criminal liability to attach, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had mens rea. Exceptions to the mens rea requirement exist for offenses of public nuisance and those enacted to enforce civil rights. The document further explores key forms of mens rea like intention, recklessness, and negligence and how they are applied under Indian law based on court precedents. General exceptions to mens rea are also discussed relating to accidents, unsoundness of mind, intoxication, and for minors.
Legal persons
- An idol is considered a juristic person under law and can own property. The property of a temple vests with the idol, which is represented by a pujari or guardian.
- The Supreme Court has held that an idol is a juristic person capable of holding property and being taxed through its shebait.
- While a Lahore High Court considered a mosque a juristic person, the Privy Council overturned this, stating there is no analogy between an idol and a mosque.
- The Supreme Court also held that the Guru Granth Sahib is a legal person for Sikhs, as it is their holy text and nucleus of the Gurudwara, though other religious
Search And Sezuire Powerpoint
The document discusses the importance of the Fourth Amendment and its protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. It provides examples of what constitutes a reasonable versus unreasonable search in both public and private schools. A reasonable search in public schools requires probable cause, a warrant, or reasonable suspicion of violation of law or school rules. Random searches of purses, lockers, and drug testing of students involved in extracurricular activities have generally been allowed. Private school students have no constitutional protections against searches.
CRPC PPT
The document discusses the processes of investigation and trial of offences in India. It explains that the police register an FIR and conduct investigations upon receiving information about a cognizable offence. The police then files a police report with the statements and evidence collected before the local magistrate. The magistrate can then take cognizance of the case and either discharge the accused or frame charges and set a date to begin the trial and examination of prosecution and defense witnesses. After considering all evidence presented, the magistrate will then deliver a verdict of acquittal or conviction and determine the sentence if the accused is found guilty.
Protection of witness;comparitive study
This document provides an overview of witness protection laws in India and other countries. It begins with an introduction noting the lack of specific witness protection legislation in India. It then discusses hostile witnesses and landmark cases. Next, it examines legal provisions for witness protection in countries like Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan, and South Korea. The document outlines some provisions for witness protection under Indian law such as the Code of Criminal Procedure and anti-terrorism laws. Finally, it discusses how protection of witnesses is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Indian Constitution.
Trial Tilak t 1897,1909, and 1916 sedition
Short View: This refers to the historic trial of Bal Gangadhar Tilak, a prominent Indian freedom fighter and nationalist leader, under charges of sedition and promoting enmity between different religious groups. The trial took place in 1908 during the British colonial rule in India. Tilak's trial became a significant event in the Indian independence movement and raised important legal and political issues related to freedom of speech, colonial oppression, and nationalist activism.
Bal Gangadhar Tilak also known as Lokmanya Tilak was a prominent Indian independence activist during the British colonial rule. During his lifetime among other Political cases Tilak had been tried for sedition in three times by British India Government-in 1897,1909, and 1916
State of Maharashtra Vs. Manesh madhusudan kotiyan
This memorial addresses three issues in a special leave petition filed before the Supreme Court of India regarding a criminal case. The first issue is whether the special leave petition is maintainable, arguing that there was no grave injustice or ignorance of substantial questions of law by the High Court. The second issue is whether consent was given voluntarily, arguing that consent was given freely without force or misconception. The third issue is whether the respondent is punishable for rape, arguing that the essential elements of rape were not met. The memorial provides arguments for each issue and submits that the petition should be dismissed.
What's hot (20)
Presentation on a Famous Legal Case: Miranda vs. Arizona
Presentation on a Famous Legal Case: Miranda vs. Arizona
Case Study:- Jesssica Lal Murder Case (Manu Sharma Vs State(NCT of Delhi)
Case Study:- Jesssica Lal Murder Case (Manu Sharma Vs State(NCT of Delhi)
State of Maharashtra Vs. Manesh madhusudan kotiyan
State of Maharashtra Vs. Manesh madhusudan kotiyan
Similar to Miranda v arizona (1966)
Miranda v arizona (1966)
Miranda v Arizona established that individuals in police custody must be informed of their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and Sixth Amendment right to legal counsel before being interrogated. Ernesto Miranda was convicted based on a confession obtained without being informed of these rights. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Miranda, concluding that defendants under arrest must be notified of their constitutional protections against self-incrimination and right to an attorney before interrogation.
Miranda v arizona (1966)
Miranda v Arizona established that defendants must be informed of their 5th and 6th amendment rights against self-incrimination and to legal counsel before being interrogated by police while in custody. Miranda was interrogated without being informed of these rights and confessed, but his attorney argued the confession should be excluded as it was obtained illegally. The Supreme Court agreed in a 5-4 decision, ruling that Miranda's rights had been violated when he was not notified of his constitutional protections prior to questioning.
Miranda v arizona (1966)
Miranda was charged with rape and kidnapping and interrogated by police without being informed of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination or his Sixth Amendment right to an attorney. He subsequently confessed to the crimes. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Miranda, concluding that defendants arrested under state law must be informed of their constitutional rights against self-incrimination and to legal representation before interrogation while in police custody.
Miranda v arizona (1966)
Miranda was charged with rape and kidnapping and interrogated by police without being informed of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination or his Sixth Amendment right to an attorney. He subsequently confessed to the crimes. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Miranda, concluding that defendants arrested under state law must be informed of their constitutional rights against self-incrimination and to legal representation before being interrogated in police custody.
Miranda v arizona (1966)
Miranda was charged with rape and kidnapping and confessed during a police interrogation where he was not informed of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination or his Sixth Amendment right to an attorney. His attorney argued his confession should be excluded as it was obtained illegally without informing him of his rights. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Miranda, concluding defendants arrested under state law must be informed of their rights against self-incrimination and to legal representation before interrogation while in police custody.
Miranda v arizona (1966)
Miranda was charged with rape and kidnapping and interrogated by police without being informed of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination or his Sixth Amendment right to an attorney. He subsequently confessed to the crimes. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Miranda, concluding that defendants arrested under state law must be informed of their constitutional rights against self-incrimination and to legal representation before interrogation while in police custody.
Miranda v arizona (1966)
In Miranda v Arizona (1966), the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the confession obtained from Ernesto Miranda without informing him of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and his Sixth Amendment right to an attorney should have been excluded from his trial for rape and kidnapping. Miranda had confessed to the crimes during a police interrogation where he was not made aware of his constitutional rights, leading the Court to conclude defendants in custody must be informed of these rights before interrogation.
Miranda v arizona (1966)
In Miranda v Arizona (1966), the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the confession obtained from Ernesto Miranda without informing him of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and his Sixth Amendment right to an attorney should have been excluded from his trial for rape and kidnapping. Miranda had confessed to the crimes during interrogation where police did not notify him of his constitutional rights, and his attorney argued this made his confession illegally obtained. The Supreme Court concluded defendants in police custody must be informed of these rights before interrogation.
Miranda v. arizona
Ernesto Miranda was arrested in 1963 and questioned by police for two hours without being informed of his constitutional rights to remain silent and have an attorney present. Miranda subsequently confessed and was convicted based on this confession. However, the Supreme Court later ruled 5-4 that Miranda's confession could not be used against him since he was not informed of his rights. This case established the requirement that police inform individuals of their "Miranda rights" upon arrest, including the right to remain silent and have an attorney, protecting against self-incrimination. The Miranda rights are still enforced today as an important protection of individuals' constitutional rights.
US case law project
Ernesto Miranda was arrested for rape and kidnapping and interrogated for 2 hours without being informed of his 5th and 6th Amendment rights. When the case went to the Arizona Supreme Court, the police argued Miranda must have known his rights from past arrests. The US Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that police must inform suspects of their right to remain silent and right to an attorney during interrogation.
McRae-Capstone
This document provides an overview and analysis of the Miranda Warning and its history and issues. It discusses key Supreme Court cases that established Miranda rights, including Miranda v. Arizona (1966) which required police to inform suspects of their rights to remain silent and have an attorney present during questioning. The document examines criticisms of the Miranda Warning including concerns about comprehension, especially for non-native English speakers. It also explores police interrogation techniques and how Miranda aims to prevent coercive practices that could violate a suspect's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.
Xavier woodson civil liberties project
In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested by Phoenix police on suspicion of kidnapping and rape. He was interrogated for two hours without being informed of his right to remain silent or have an attorney present. Miranda confessed and was convicted solely based on this written confession. The Supreme Court later ruled Miranda's confession inadmissible because his constitutional rights were violated. This ruling established that suspects must be informed of their Miranda rights before custodial interrogation.
Presentationnew
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) established that the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of their freedom of action unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. Specifically, Miranda established that the defendant must be warned prior to any questioning that they have the right to remain silent, that anything they say can be used against them in a court of law, that they have the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if they cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for them prior to any questioning if they so desire.
Miranda arizona
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) established that the prosecution may not use statements obtained from defendants during custodial interrogation unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. Ernesto Miranda was interrogated by police for two hours without being informed of his right to remain silent and have an attorney present. His confession was used to convict him, but the Supreme Court ultimately ruled 5-4 that his confession should have been excluded from trial because his rights were not properly protected during questioning. The ruling established that the police must inform individuals in custody of their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and Sixth Amendment right to an attorney before interrogation.
Miranda Vs Arizona
Ernesto Miranda was arrested for armed robbery and later confessed to rape without being informed of his rights to remain silent and have an attorney present during questioning, as required by the Supreme Court's Miranda ruling establishing these protections under the 5th and 6th Amendments. The court case examined whether Miranda's confession could be used against him since he was not read his rights, with the Supreme Court ultimately ruling his confession inadmissible and requiring police to inform arrested individuals of their rights before questioning.
College Business Law Presentation
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) established that the prosecution may not use statements obtained from defendants during custodial interrogation unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. Ernesto Miranda was interrogated by police for two hours without being informed of his right to remain silent and his right to an attorney. He confessed to rape and kidnapping charges. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Miranda's confession could not be used against him at trial because he was not informed of his constitutional rights prior to questioning. The ruling required police to inform individuals of their Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights before questioning.
College Business Law Presentation
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) established that the prosecution may not use statements obtained from defendants during custodial interrogation unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. Ernesto Miranda was interrogated by police for two hours without being informed of his right to remain silent and his right to an attorney. He subsequently confessed and was convicted based primarily on his confession. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Miranda's confession could not be used against him at trial because he had not been informed of his Fifth Amendment rights prior to questioning. This case required police to inform individuals in custody of their Miranda rights before interrogation.
Miranda Vs Arizona3
Ernesto Miranda was arrested for armed robbery and later confessed to rape without being informed of his rights to remain silent and have an attorney present during questioning, as required by the Supreme Court's Miranda ruling. The Court ruled that Miranda's confession obtained without informing him of his rights violated the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, establishing that suspects must be informed of their rights before custodial interrogation.
Similar to Miranda v arizona (1966) (18)
Miranda v arizona (1966)
- 1. Miranda v Arizona (1966)