Miranda v. arizona
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•4,179 views
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.
Report
Share
Report
Share
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.
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.
Miranda v arizona (1966)
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.
Rule 117 motion to quash
To know when, how and why in filing the motion to quash under the criminal procedure of the Philippines
Fundamentals of investigation
This document provides an overview of fundamentals of criminal investigation. It discusses characteristics of successful investigators including being objective, adjustable, and diplomatic. It outlines the basic types of investigations and steps in preliminary and follow-up investigations. It also covers interview and interrogation techniques, types of interviews, obtaining and recording information, and the difference between information and evidence in criminal cases.
Presentation. victimology
The document provides an overview of victimology in Pakistan, including:
- Victimology is an interdisciplinary field that studies victims of crime and terrorism. Victimization in Pakistan has been increasing in recent years across various crime categories.
- The criminal justice system in Pakistan is poorly equipped to support victims, with issues like corruption, lack of resources, and responsiveness. Victims face secondary victimization through the justice process.
- Specific groups like women, children, and minorities face particular forms of victimization. The rate of crimes against women is lower than other crimes but more severe in nature.
- Factors contributing to rising victimization include a lack of certainty of punishment, weapon proliferation,
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.
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.
Miranda v arizona (1966)
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.
Rule 117 motion to quash
To know when, how and why in filing the motion to quash under the criminal procedure of the Philippines
Fundamentals of investigation
This document provides an overview of fundamentals of criminal investigation. It discusses characteristics of successful investigators including being objective, adjustable, and diplomatic. It outlines the basic types of investigations and steps in preliminary and follow-up investigations. It also covers interview and interrogation techniques, types of interviews, obtaining and recording information, and the difference between information and evidence in criminal cases.
Presentation. victimology
The document provides an overview of victimology in Pakistan, including:
- Victimology is an interdisciplinary field that studies victims of crime and terrorism. Victimization in Pakistan has been increasing in recent years across various crime categories.
- The criminal justice system in Pakistan is poorly equipped to support victims, with issues like corruption, lack of resources, and responsiveness. Victims face secondary victimization through the justice process.
- Specific groups like women, children, and minorities face particular forms of victimization. The rate of crimes against women is lower than other crimes but more severe in nature.
- Factors contributing to rising victimization include a lack of certainty of punishment, weapon proliferation,
Arrest
1. The document discusses the rules and procedures related to arrest under Philippine law. It defines arrest and outlines when an arrest can be made with or without a warrant.
2. It also discusses the rights of individuals who are arrested, such as the right to be informed of the reason for arrest and the right to counsel.
3. The document also covers custodial investigation procedures and notes that statements made during custodial investigation without the presence of counsel cannot be used as evidence.
Introduction to the U.S. Criminal Justice System
The document discusses crime and the criminal justice system in the United States. It notes that crime is a top public concern but most police calls involve minor disturbances. The criminal justice system aims to respond to and prevent crime through institutions like law enforcement, courts, and corrections. However, the system operates differently across jurisdictions and agencies often work independently instead of as a coordinated "system." It is an enormous but costly institution.
Fourth amendment
This document summarizes key aspects of Fourth Amendment search and seizure law, including requirements for search warrants, exceptions to the warrant requirement, and analyses of relevant Supreme Court cases. It discusses the reasonable expectation of privacy test, probable cause standard, and exclusionary rule. It also outlines exceptions such as search incident to arrest, automobile exception, plain view doctrine, consent searches, and inventory searches.
Bill of Rights
The document provides an overview of the Bill of Rights, which are the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution. It summarizes each amendment, explaining the key rights and freedoms they protect such as freedom of religion, speech, press, trial by jury, and protection from unlawful search and seizure. It also explains that the Bill of Rights limits the powers of the federal government and protects citizen liberties rather than granting specific rights.
Due Process
Due process refers to the requirement that the government must respect all legal rights that are owed to a person. It includes both substantive and procedural aspects. Substantive due process establishes that governmental rules must be reasonably defined and related to a valid purpose. Procedural due process refers to the fair procedures that must be followed before the government can deprive someone of life, liberty, or property. This includes the right to adequate notice of charges, a hearing at a meaningful time and place, and the right to respond to charges and present evidence. Students facing suspension or expulsion are owed certain due process rights, including timely disposition of hearings, proper notice of charges, adherence to established procedures, the right to a hearing, and substantive due
Criminal Investigations (Part One)
This document provides an overview of law enforcement procedures for criminal investigations, including preliminary investigations, securing crime scenes, collecting evidence, and forensic analysis techniques. It discusses protocols for responding to and documenting crime scenes, as well as collecting trace evidence like fingerprints, ballistics, and DNA. Advanced technologies like AFIS, NIBIN, and superglue fuming have improved the ability to identify suspects and link crimes through physical evidence analysis.
Criminal procedure simplified
The document discusses the rules and procedures relating to criminal prosecution in the Philippines, including the jurisdiction of various courts over criminal cases. It covers topics such as the complaint or information required to initiate a criminal case, who may prosecute criminal actions, when injunctions can be used to restrain criminal prosecution, and the different types of jurisdiction including territorial jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over certain cases and appellate jurisdiction to review cases involving constitutional questions, while the Court of Appeals has appellate jurisdiction over final judgments of RTCs.
INVESTIGATION PROCESS ACCORDING TO crpc PREPARED BY STUDENTS OF IOL
The document discusses the role of investigation in the criminal justice system. It defines investigation as the process of collecting evidence about a crime to determine if a crime was committed, identify the perpetrator, apprehend the perpetrator, and provide evidence to support a conviction. A full investigation refers to a careful search or examination to discover facts. The duties of an investigation officer include proceeding to the crime scene promptly, rendering assistance to injured parties, effecting arrests, locating witnesses, interviewing complainants and witnesses, maintaining and protecting the crime scene and evidence.
Chapter 15 - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL
This document provides an overview of key concepts in criminal procedure before trial, including constitutional protections for criminal suspects and defendants. It discusses the requirements for reasonable searches and seizures under the 4th Amendment, including exceptions to the warrant requirement. It also covers interrogations and confessions, the right to counsel, and the 12 typical pretrial activities like arrest, booking, bail, arraignment and discovery. Key Supreme Court cases establishing rights like Miranda warnings, effective assistance of counsel, and exclusion of illegally obtained evidence are also summarized.
Cr.p.c. (short notes)
This document provides definitions and explanations of key legal terms from the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C). It defines and discusses bailable and non-bailable offenses, charge, cognizable and non-cognizable offenses, complaint, inquiry, investigation, judicial proceedings, offense, police report, public prosecutor, and warrant and summons cases. For each term, it provides the definition in Cr.P.C. and relevant case law examples to aid understanding of how the terms are applied in legal contexts.
Aggravating circumstances
This document summarizes the different types of aggravating circumstances under Philippine law based on Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code. It discusses 4 kinds of aggravating circumstances - generic, qualifying, special/specific, and inherent. It provides examples and details on how each aggravating circumstance increases penalty. Distinctions between aggravating and mitigating circumstances are also explained. Specific aggravating circumstances covered include abuse of position, public authority, age/sex, nighttime, band, habitual delinquency, premeditation, and cruelty.
Arrest and questioning of accused in India, U.K. and U.S.A. | Comparitive Cri...
The document compares criminal procedures related to arrest and questioning of accused persons in India, the UK, and the USA. In India, arrest can be made with or without a warrant by police officers, private persons, or magistrates under specific sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Upon arrest, the accused must be informed of the charges and brought before a magistrate within 24 hours. In the UK, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act provides powers of arrest with or without a warrant to police and private persons. Arrested persons must be informed of the grounds for and fact of arrest. In the USA, police can make warrantless arrests with probable cause and must inform arrested persons of their Miranda rights against self-incrimination if the arrest
Criminology and Victimology
The document discusses several theories related to victimization:
1) Precipitation theory suggests some victims provoke attacks through their actions, while others unintentionally motivate attackers due to characteristics like gender or age.
2) Lifestyle theory argues those with riskier lifestyles like drug/alcohol use and criminal involvement face higher victimization rates.
3) Deviant place theory claims living in high-crime, disorganized areas increases victimization risk regardless of individual behaviors.
4) Routine activities theory links victimization to interactions between suitable targets, lack of guardianship, and motivated offenders that routine activities can expose people to.
Sentencing
Once a person is found guilty of a criminal offense, the court must impose a sentence. Sentences can range from prison time to fines to unconditional discharges. Judges consider factors like the offense committed, the offender's background, and the aims of sentencing which include punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, protection of the public, and reparations. Sentencing also depends on things like whether the offender has a criminal record or mental health issues. Different types of sentences include custodial sentences, community sentences, fines, and discharges. Special considerations are made for young or mentally ill offenders.
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).
Crpc ppt final sindu
The document discusses the importance and requirements of framing an accurate charge against an accused in a criminal trial. It states that giving precise information about the accusation to the accused is vital to preparing a defense. A charge must include the time, place and details of the alleged offense, the law and section violated, and be written clearly without unnecessary words. The purpose of framing a charge is to give the accused unambiguous notice of the accusation. There can be joinder or alteration of charges in some cases, but the basic rule is that each distinct offense requires a separate charge and trial.
Theories of female criminality
The document summarizes and compares four major theories of female criminality: masculinization theory, opportunity theory, marginalization theory, and chivalry theory. The masculinization theory, proposed by Freda Adler, argues that women's increasing involvement in crime is due to their adoption of masculine traits and behaviors as traditional gender roles change. Opportunity theory, developed by Rita Simon, asserts that greater opportunities available to women lead to higher rates of property crimes. Marginalization theory, from Meda Chesney-Lind, posits that the marginal social status of many women in terms of low income, inadequate jobs, and family victimization pushes them towards criminality. Of the four theories discussed, the document argues that
Defences to defamation
This document outlines several defenses to defamation claims, including:
1. Justification or truth - if the defamatory statement was substantially true, it is a valid defense.
2. Fair comment - a comment or opinion expressed in the public interest that does not state actual facts about the plaintiff.
3. Privilege - statements made in certain contexts, such as in court, are protected. There are absolute privileges, like for legislators performing official duties, and qualified privileges, like for accurate news reports.
White collar crime by waseem i. khan
This document discusses white collar crime, including its definition, examples, causes, and solutions. It was first defined by Prof. Edwin Sutherland in 1941 as non-violent crimes committed by business and government professionals. Examples include fraud, patent infringement, and falsifying financial documents. Causes of white collar crime include greed, opportunity afforded by one's occupation, and a culture of accepting dishonest business practices. Proposed solutions include public awareness campaigns, special tribunals, and stronger laws and punishments.
Mitigating circumstance
This document discusses mitigating circumstances under Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines. It defines mitigating circumstances as factors that lessen criminal liability and reduce the penalty for a crime. There are ordinary mitigating circumstances explicitly listed in the code as well as privileged mitigating circumstances like minority. The document examines several specific ordinary mitigating circumstances in detail, such as insufficient provocation, immediate vindication of a grave offense, and voluntary surrender. It also distinguishes ordinary from privileged mitigating circumstances in terms of how they affect penalties.
Goal 5 ppt
This document outlines NC Competency Goal 5 which is about how political and legal systems balance competing interests and resolve conflicts. It provides objectives related to evaluating methods of resolving conflicts like debate, compromise and negotiation. It discusses the adversarial nature of the judicial process and roles of different entities in public policy decisions. It explains how local governments balance interests and resolve zoning conflicts. It defines the jurisdictions of state and federal courts and discusses landmark Supreme Court cases related to due process rights. It also summarizes methods of resolving civil conflicts and key aspects of criminal law, the criminal trial process, and juvenile law and rights.
Miranda v arizona joy taylor
The Supreme Court's decision in Miranda v. Arizona addressed four cases involving custodial interrogations where the defendants' rights were not properly conveyed to them. The decision established that the police must inform individuals of their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination before questioning, known as Miranda warnings. This ruling aimed to protect individuals from being compelled to incriminate themselves.
More Related Content
What's hot
Arrest
1. The document discusses the rules and procedures related to arrest under Philippine law. It defines arrest and outlines when an arrest can be made with or without a warrant.
2. It also discusses the rights of individuals who are arrested, such as the right to be informed of the reason for arrest and the right to counsel.
3. The document also covers custodial investigation procedures and notes that statements made during custodial investigation without the presence of counsel cannot be used as evidence.
Introduction to the U.S. Criminal Justice System
The document discusses crime and the criminal justice system in the United States. It notes that crime is a top public concern but most police calls involve minor disturbances. The criminal justice system aims to respond to and prevent crime through institutions like law enforcement, courts, and corrections. However, the system operates differently across jurisdictions and agencies often work independently instead of as a coordinated "system." It is an enormous but costly institution.
Fourth amendment
This document summarizes key aspects of Fourth Amendment search and seizure law, including requirements for search warrants, exceptions to the warrant requirement, and analyses of relevant Supreme Court cases. It discusses the reasonable expectation of privacy test, probable cause standard, and exclusionary rule. It also outlines exceptions such as search incident to arrest, automobile exception, plain view doctrine, consent searches, and inventory searches.
Bill of Rights
The document provides an overview of the Bill of Rights, which are the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution. It summarizes each amendment, explaining the key rights and freedoms they protect such as freedom of religion, speech, press, trial by jury, and protection from unlawful search and seizure. It also explains that the Bill of Rights limits the powers of the federal government and protects citizen liberties rather than granting specific rights.
Due Process
Due process refers to the requirement that the government must respect all legal rights that are owed to a person. It includes both substantive and procedural aspects. Substantive due process establishes that governmental rules must be reasonably defined and related to a valid purpose. Procedural due process refers to the fair procedures that must be followed before the government can deprive someone of life, liberty, or property. This includes the right to adequate notice of charges, a hearing at a meaningful time and place, and the right to respond to charges and present evidence. Students facing suspension or expulsion are owed certain due process rights, including timely disposition of hearings, proper notice of charges, adherence to established procedures, the right to a hearing, and substantive due
Criminal Investigations (Part One)
This document provides an overview of law enforcement procedures for criminal investigations, including preliminary investigations, securing crime scenes, collecting evidence, and forensic analysis techniques. It discusses protocols for responding to and documenting crime scenes, as well as collecting trace evidence like fingerprints, ballistics, and DNA. Advanced technologies like AFIS, NIBIN, and superglue fuming have improved the ability to identify suspects and link crimes through physical evidence analysis.
Criminal procedure simplified
The document discusses the rules and procedures relating to criminal prosecution in the Philippines, including the jurisdiction of various courts over criminal cases. It covers topics such as the complaint or information required to initiate a criminal case, who may prosecute criminal actions, when injunctions can be used to restrain criminal prosecution, and the different types of jurisdiction including territorial jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over certain cases and appellate jurisdiction to review cases involving constitutional questions, while the Court of Appeals has appellate jurisdiction over final judgments of RTCs.
INVESTIGATION PROCESS ACCORDING TO crpc PREPARED BY STUDENTS OF IOL
The document discusses the role of investigation in the criminal justice system. It defines investigation as the process of collecting evidence about a crime to determine if a crime was committed, identify the perpetrator, apprehend the perpetrator, and provide evidence to support a conviction. A full investigation refers to a careful search or examination to discover facts. The duties of an investigation officer include proceeding to the crime scene promptly, rendering assistance to injured parties, effecting arrests, locating witnesses, interviewing complainants and witnesses, maintaining and protecting the crime scene and evidence.
Chapter 15 - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL
This document provides an overview of key concepts in criminal procedure before trial, including constitutional protections for criminal suspects and defendants. It discusses the requirements for reasonable searches and seizures under the 4th Amendment, including exceptions to the warrant requirement. It also covers interrogations and confessions, the right to counsel, and the 12 typical pretrial activities like arrest, booking, bail, arraignment and discovery. Key Supreme Court cases establishing rights like Miranda warnings, effective assistance of counsel, and exclusion of illegally obtained evidence are also summarized.
Cr.p.c. (short notes)
This document provides definitions and explanations of key legal terms from the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C). It defines and discusses bailable and non-bailable offenses, charge, cognizable and non-cognizable offenses, complaint, inquiry, investigation, judicial proceedings, offense, police report, public prosecutor, and warrant and summons cases. For each term, it provides the definition in Cr.P.C. and relevant case law examples to aid understanding of how the terms are applied in legal contexts.
Aggravating circumstances
This document summarizes the different types of aggravating circumstances under Philippine law based on Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code. It discusses 4 kinds of aggravating circumstances - generic, qualifying, special/specific, and inherent. It provides examples and details on how each aggravating circumstance increases penalty. Distinctions between aggravating and mitigating circumstances are also explained. Specific aggravating circumstances covered include abuse of position, public authority, age/sex, nighttime, band, habitual delinquency, premeditation, and cruelty.
Arrest and questioning of accused in India, U.K. and U.S.A. | Comparitive Cri...
The document compares criminal procedures related to arrest and questioning of accused persons in India, the UK, and the USA. In India, arrest can be made with or without a warrant by police officers, private persons, or magistrates under specific sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Upon arrest, the accused must be informed of the charges and brought before a magistrate within 24 hours. In the UK, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act provides powers of arrest with or without a warrant to police and private persons. Arrested persons must be informed of the grounds for and fact of arrest. In the USA, police can make warrantless arrests with probable cause and must inform arrested persons of their Miranda rights against self-incrimination if the arrest
Criminology and Victimology
The document discusses several theories related to victimization:
1) Precipitation theory suggests some victims provoke attacks through their actions, while others unintentionally motivate attackers due to characteristics like gender or age.
2) Lifestyle theory argues those with riskier lifestyles like drug/alcohol use and criminal involvement face higher victimization rates.
3) Deviant place theory claims living in high-crime, disorganized areas increases victimization risk regardless of individual behaviors.
4) Routine activities theory links victimization to interactions between suitable targets, lack of guardianship, and motivated offenders that routine activities can expose people to.
Sentencing
Once a person is found guilty of a criminal offense, the court must impose a sentence. Sentences can range from prison time to fines to unconditional discharges. Judges consider factors like the offense committed, the offender's background, and the aims of sentencing which include punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, protection of the public, and reparations. Sentencing also depends on things like whether the offender has a criminal record or mental health issues. Different types of sentences include custodial sentences, community sentences, fines, and discharges. Special considerations are made for young or mentally ill offenders.
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).
Crpc ppt final sindu
The document discusses the importance and requirements of framing an accurate charge against an accused in a criminal trial. It states that giving precise information about the accusation to the accused is vital to preparing a defense. A charge must include the time, place and details of the alleged offense, the law and section violated, and be written clearly without unnecessary words. The purpose of framing a charge is to give the accused unambiguous notice of the accusation. There can be joinder or alteration of charges in some cases, but the basic rule is that each distinct offense requires a separate charge and trial.
Theories of female criminality
The document summarizes and compares four major theories of female criminality: masculinization theory, opportunity theory, marginalization theory, and chivalry theory. The masculinization theory, proposed by Freda Adler, argues that women's increasing involvement in crime is due to their adoption of masculine traits and behaviors as traditional gender roles change. Opportunity theory, developed by Rita Simon, asserts that greater opportunities available to women lead to higher rates of property crimes. Marginalization theory, from Meda Chesney-Lind, posits that the marginal social status of many women in terms of low income, inadequate jobs, and family victimization pushes them towards criminality. Of the four theories discussed, the document argues that
Defences to defamation
This document outlines several defenses to defamation claims, including:
1. Justification or truth - if the defamatory statement was substantially true, it is a valid defense.
2. Fair comment - a comment or opinion expressed in the public interest that does not state actual facts about the plaintiff.
3. Privilege - statements made in certain contexts, such as in court, are protected. There are absolute privileges, like for legislators performing official duties, and qualified privileges, like for accurate news reports.
White collar crime by waseem i. khan
This document discusses white collar crime, including its definition, examples, causes, and solutions. It was first defined by Prof. Edwin Sutherland in 1941 as non-violent crimes committed by business and government professionals. Examples include fraud, patent infringement, and falsifying financial documents. Causes of white collar crime include greed, opportunity afforded by one's occupation, and a culture of accepting dishonest business practices. Proposed solutions include public awareness campaigns, special tribunals, and stronger laws and punishments.
Mitigating circumstance
This document discusses mitigating circumstances under Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines. It defines mitigating circumstances as factors that lessen criminal liability and reduce the penalty for a crime. There are ordinary mitigating circumstances explicitly listed in the code as well as privileged mitigating circumstances like minority. The document examines several specific ordinary mitigating circumstances in detail, such as insufficient provocation, immediate vindication of a grave offense, and voluntary surrender. It also distinguishes ordinary from privileged mitigating circumstances in terms of how they affect penalties.
What's hot (20)
INVESTIGATION PROCESS ACCORDING TO crpc PREPARED BY STUDENTS OF IOL
INVESTIGATION PROCESS ACCORDING TO crpc PREPARED BY STUDENTS OF IOL
Arrest and questioning of accused in India, U.K. and U.S.A. | Comparitive Cri...
Arrest and questioning of accused in India, U.K. and U.S.A. | Comparitive Cri...
Presentation on a Famous Legal Case: Miranda vs. Arizona
Presentation on a Famous Legal Case: Miranda vs. Arizona
Viewers also liked
Goal 5 ppt
This document outlines NC Competency Goal 5 which is about how political and legal systems balance competing interests and resolve conflicts. It provides objectives related to evaluating methods of resolving conflicts like debate, compromise and negotiation. It discusses the adversarial nature of the judicial process and roles of different entities in public policy decisions. It explains how local governments balance interests and resolve zoning conflicts. It defines the jurisdictions of state and federal courts and discusses landmark Supreme Court cases related to due process rights. It also summarizes methods of resolving civil conflicts and key aspects of criminal law, the criminal trial process, and juvenile law and rights.
Miranda v arizona joy taylor
The Supreme Court's decision in Miranda v. Arizona addressed four cases involving custodial interrogations where the defendants' rights were not properly conveyed to them. The decision established that the police must inform individuals of their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination before questioning, known as Miranda warnings. This ruling aimed to protect individuals from being compelled to incriminate themselves.
The Judicial Branch | The US Supreme Court
The document provides an overview of the US Judicial Branch, including its constitutional role, membership, and key decisions. It discusses the structure of the federal court system with the Supreme Court at the top. It profiles the current justices, judicial philosophies around constructionism and activism, and the appointments process. Notable cases from the Warren, Burger, Rehnquist, and Roberts courts are summarized regarding desegregation, privacy, criminal procedure, abortion, executive power, and the Affordable Care Act.
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.
Unit 6 pp court cases-1
This document provides summaries of important Supreme Court cases. It summarizes Marbury v. Madison as establishing judicial review, allowing the Supreme Court to determine if laws are constitutional. It summarizes McCulloch v. Maryland as establishing that federal laws supersede state laws. It summarizes Gibbons v. Ogden as establishing that the federal government has power over interstate commerce.
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.
Viewers also liked (6)
Similar to Miranda v. arizona
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 (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 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.
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.
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.
Supreme court case project
Ernesto Miranda was arrested and confessed to crimes after two hours of questioning without being read his rights. Miranda appealed his conviction, arguing his confession should be inadmissible since he was unaware he could remain silent. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Miranda's rights were violated when he unknowingly incriminated himself, establishing that suspects must be informed of their right to remain silent. This case defined the "Miranda rights" read to arrested individuals, protecting their 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination.
Miranda Rights-Word Document.
This document discusses the Miranda rights and their origin from the 1966 Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona. It provides details of the case, in which Ernest Miranda was questioned by police without being informed of his right to remain silent or have an attorney present. His confession was later ruled inadmissible. As a result, the Supreme Court ruled that suspects in custody must be read their Miranda rights, including the right to remain silent and have an attorney, before being questioned. The document outlines the typical Miranda warnings and explains that they are meant to protect 4th and 5th amendment rights and must be given before formal questioning begins if a suspect is in custody.
Miranda Rights.
Miranda warnings inform suspects of their constitutional rights when being questioned by police. They originated from the 1966 Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona, which ruled that suspects must be informed that they have the right to remain silent and request an attorney before and during questioning. The Miranda case involved Ernesto Miranda, who was arrested and confessed to kidnapping and rape without being informed of his rights. His confession was ruled inadmissible, establishing that suspects must be read their Miranda rights to protect against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment. Miranda warnings must be given when a suspect is in custody and subject to interrogation. They do not have to be given for basic identifying questions alone.
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.
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.
Similar to Miranda v. arizona (16)
Recently uploaded
BÀI TẬP BỔ TRỢ TIẾNG ANH 8 CẢ NĂM - GLOBAL SUCCESS - NĂM HỌC 2023-2024 (CÓ FI...
BÀI TẬP BỔ TRỢ TIẾNG ANH 8 CẢ NĂM - GLOBAL SUCCESS - NĂM HỌC 2023-2024 (CÓ FI...Nguyen Thanh Tu Collection
https://app.box.com/s/y977uz6bpd3af4qsebv7r9b7s21935vdMain Java[All of the Base Concepts}.docx
This is part 1 of my Java Learning Journey. This Contains Custom methods, classes, constructors, packages, multithreading , try- catch block, finally block and more.
The History of Stoke Newington Street Names
Presented at the Stoke Newington Literary Festival on 9th June 2024
www.StokeNewingtonHistory.com
Your Skill Boost Masterclass: Strategies for Effective Upskilling
Your Skill Boost Masterclass: Strategies for Effective UpskillingExcellence Foundation for South Sudan
Strategies for Effective Upskilling is a presentation by Chinwendu Peace in a Your Skill Boost Masterclass organisation by the Excellence Foundation for South Sudan on 08th and 09th June 2024 from 1 PM to 3 PM on each day.Advanced Java[Extra Concepts, Not Difficult].docx
This is part 2 of my Java Learning Journey. This contains Hashing, ArrayList, LinkedList, Date and Time Classes, Calendar Class and more.
Beyond Degrees - Empowering the Workforce in the Context of Skills-First.pptx
Iván Bornacelly, Policy Analyst at the OECD Centre for Skills, OECD, presents at the webinar 'Tackling job market gaps with a skills-first approach' on 12 June 2024
BÀI TẬP DẠY THÊM TIẾNG ANH LỚP 7 CẢ NĂM FRIENDS PLUS SÁCH CHÂN TRỜI SÁNG TẠO ...
BÀI TẬP DẠY THÊM TIẾNG ANH LỚP 7 CẢ NĂM FRIENDS PLUS SÁCH CHÂN TRỜI SÁNG TẠO ...Nguyen Thanh Tu Collection
https://app.box.com/s/qhtvq32h4ybf9t49ku85x0n3xl4jhr15বাংলাদেশ অর্থনৈতিক সমীক্ষা (Economic Review) ২০২৪ UJS App.pdf
বাংলাদেশের অর্থনৈতিক সমীক্ষা ২০২৪ [Bangladesh Economic Review 2024 Bangla.pdf] কম্পিউটার , ট্যাব ও স্মার্ট ফোন ভার্সন সহ সম্পূর্ণ বাংলা ই-বুক বা pdf বই " সুচিপত্র ...বুকমার্ক মেনু 🔖 ও হাইপার লিংক মেনু 📝👆 যুক্ত ..
আমাদের সবার জন্য খুব খুব গুরুত্বপূর্ণ একটি বই ..বিসিএস, ব্যাংক, ইউনিভার্সিটি ভর্তি ও যে কোন প্রতিযোগিতা মূলক পরীক্ষার জন্য এর খুব ইম্পরট্যান্ট একটি বিষয় ...তাছাড়া বাংলাদেশের সাম্প্রতিক যে কোন ডাটা বা তথ্য এই বইতে পাবেন ...
তাই একজন নাগরিক হিসাবে এই তথ্য গুলো আপনার জানা প্রয়োজন ...।
বিসিএস ও ব্যাংক এর লিখিত পরীক্ষা ...+এছাড়া মাধ্যমিক ও উচ্চমাধ্যমিকের স্টুডেন্টদের জন্য অনেক কাজে আসবে ...
BBR 2024 Summer Sessions Interview Training
Qualitative research interview training by Professor Katrina Pritchard and Dr Helen Williams
Leveraging Generative AI to Drive Nonprofit Innovation
In this webinar, participants learned how to utilize Generative AI to streamline operations and elevate member engagement. Amazon Web Service experts provided a customer specific use cases and dived into low/no-code tools that are quick and easy to deploy through Amazon Web Service (AWS.)
clinical examination of hip joint (1).pdf
described clinical examination all orthopeadic conditions .
Constructing Your Course Container for Effective Communication
Communicating effectively and consistently with students can help them feel at ease during their learning experience and provide the instructor with a communication trail to track the course's progress. This workshop will take you through constructing an engaging course container to facilitate effective communication.
RHEOLOGY Physical pharmaceutics-II notes for B.pharm 4th sem students
Physical pharmaceutics notes for B.pharm students
Solutons Maths Escape Room Spatial .pptx
Solutions of Puzzles of Mathematics Escape Room Game in Spatial.io
Recently uploaded (20)
BÀI TẬP BỔ TRỢ TIẾNG ANH 8 CẢ NĂM - GLOBAL SUCCESS - NĂM HỌC 2023-2024 (CÓ FI...
BÀI TẬP BỔ TRỢ TIẾNG ANH 8 CẢ NĂM - GLOBAL SUCCESS - NĂM HỌC 2023-2024 (CÓ FI...
Your Skill Boost Masterclass: Strategies for Effective Upskilling
Your Skill Boost Masterclass: Strategies for Effective Upskilling
Beyond Degrees - Empowering the Workforce in the Context of Skills-First.pptx
Beyond Degrees - Empowering the Workforce in the Context of Skills-First.pptx
BÀI TẬP DẠY THÊM TIẾNG ANH LỚP 7 CẢ NĂM FRIENDS PLUS SÁCH CHÂN TRỜI SÁNG TẠO ...
BÀI TẬP DẠY THÊM TIẾNG ANH LỚP 7 CẢ NĂM FRIENDS PLUS SÁCH CHÂN TRỜI SÁNG TẠO ...
NEWSPAPERS - QUESTION 1 - REVISION POWERPOINT.pptx
NEWSPAPERS - QUESTION 1 - REVISION POWERPOINT.pptx
বাংলাদেশ অর্থনৈতিক সমীক্ষা (Economic Review) ২০২৪ UJS App.pdf
বাংলাদেশ অর্থনৈতিক সমীক্ষা (Economic Review) ২০২৪ UJS App.pdf
Leveraging Generative AI to Drive Nonprofit Innovation
Leveraging Generative AI to Drive Nonprofit Innovation
B. Ed Syllabus for babasaheb ambedkar education university.pdf
B. Ed Syllabus for babasaheb ambedkar education university.pdf
Constructing Your Course Container for Effective Communication
Constructing Your Course Container for Effective Communication
RHEOLOGY Physical pharmaceutics-II notes for B.pharm 4th sem students
RHEOLOGY Physical pharmaceutics-II notes for B.pharm 4th sem students
Miranda v. arizona
- 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.