Miranda vs. Arizona
Saanvi Kunisetty
The case Miranda vs. Arizona established that people should be told their due process rights before interrogation. It also established the Miranda rights, derived from the fifth and sixth amendments. When the police officers began to interrogate Miranda and attempted to get him to confess to kidnapping and raping a girl, they did not bother to inform him of the basic procedural provisions that were in place, hence violating Miranda’s procedural due process rights. These rights included the right against self-incrimination (testifying against oneself), and the right to have an attorney present even before beginning to answer questions, as stated in the fifth amendment. During the trial, the prosecution utilized Miranda’s written confession as substantial evidence of his wrongdoing. But, the Supreme Court ruled that Miranda’s confession could not be used as evidence against him, as he had signed the written statement without being told that he had the right to a lawyer.
Resources:
No comments:
Post a Comment