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.

1. By: Zayra Rendon
2nd

2.  SSCG16The student will demonstrate
knowledge of the operation of the federal
judiciary.

3.  Miranda v. Arizona

4.  Ernesto Miranda lived in Arizona as a poor
man in 1963. A woman accused him of
committing a crime against her.Within two
hours, he was arrested and questioned about
the crime.

5.  In the United States, people accused of crimes have
only certain rights granted from the constitution.
 The 15th amendment states that we have the right to
remain silent.
 The 16th amendment states that we have the right to have
a lawyer to defend ourselves.

6.  When Miranda was arrested, the police did not state
that Miranda had those rights. After being
questioned, Miranda signed a confession.The police
used his confession against him during the trial and
he was convicted of the crime.

7.  The judge decided to convict Miranda with 20
to 30 years in prison for each crime.

8.  Miranda decided to appeal his case to the Supreme
Court in Arizona. His attorney stated that his
confession shouldn’t have been used against
because the police did not inform him of his rights,
and he had no attorney present during questioning.

9.  The government argued that since Miranda
has been convicted to multiple crimes before,
he should’ve know his rights to begin with.
They denied his appeal and kept the charges
on Miranda.

10.  The Supreme Court agreed to hear Miranda’s
Case.They ruled, in a 5-4 decision, that the
prosecution could not continue.They could
not use Miranda’s confession against him
because the police failed to inform him about
his rights.

11.  Later on, Miranda was retired and convicted
without the use of his confession.

12.  This case created the “Miranda Rights”.
 “The right to remain silence.”
 “Anything said can and will be used against the defendant
in a court of law”
 Today, people take for granted the “Miranda
Rights”. It’s the basic rights of the individuals that
reconcile the increase in police power.

13.  The “Miranda Rights” is still in forced. It has
been upheld all these years and it’s still
accepted as a valid precedent by appellate
courts.