Scribd Logo
Importer

Bienvenue sur Scribd !

  • A03 S12 01 Miranda vs. Arizona

    Transféré par

    PaulRuiz
    46 vues2 pages
    The Supreme Court held that statements made by individuals in police custody are not admissible unless procedural safeguards are used to secure the individual's privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment. Specifically, the Court found that individuals in custody must be informed that they have the right to remain silent, that any statement can be used against them in court, and that they have the right to an attorney during questioning. Unless these warnings are given, statements made during custodial interrogation cannot be admitted at trial. The Court thus established that Miranda warnings must be given prior to custodial interrogation.

    Description originale:

    asdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formats disponibles

    RTF, PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd

    Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

    Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

    Signaler ce document
    The Supreme Court held that statements made by individuals in police custody are not admissible unless procedural safeguards are used to secure the individual's privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment. Specifically, the Court found that individuals in custody must be informed that they have the right to remain silent, that any statement can be used against them in court, and that they have the right to an attorney during questioning. Unless these warnings are given, statements made during custodial interrogation cannot be admitted at trial. The Court thus established that Miranda warnings must be given prior to custodial interrogation.

    Droits d'auteur :

    © All Rights Reserved
    Téléchargez comme RTF, PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    46 vues2 pages

    A03 S12 01 Miranda vs. Arizona

    Transféré par

    PaulRuiz
    The Supreme Court held that statements made by individuals in police custody are not admissible unless procedural safeguards are used to secure the individual's privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment. Specifically, the Court found that individuals in custody must be informed that they have the right to remain silent, that any statement can be used against them in court, and that they have the right to an attorney during questioning. Unless these warnings are given, statements made during custodial interrogation cannot be admitted at trial. The Court thus established that Miranda warnings must be given prior to custodial interrogation.

    Droits d'auteur :

    © All Rights Reserved
    Téléchargez comme RTF, PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    sur 2

    Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

    FACTS: The Supreme Cour!" de#i"ion in Miranda v. Arizona addre""ed $our


    di$$eren #a"e" invo%vin& #u"odia% inerro&aion". 'n ea#h o$ he"e #a"e"( he de$endan
    )a" *ue"ioned +, po%i#e o$$i#er"( dee#ive"( or a pro"e#uin& aorne, in a room in
    )hi#h he )a" #u o$$ $rom he ou"ide )or%d. 'n none o$ he"e #a"e" )a" he de$endan
    &iven a $u%% and e$$e#ive )arnin& o$ hi" ri&h" a he ou"e o$ he inerro&aion pro#e"".
    'n a%% he #a"e"( he *ue"ionin& e%i#ied ora% admi""ion" and( in hree o$ hem( "i&ned
    "aemen" ha )ere admied a ria%.
    Miranda v. Arizona: Miranda )a" arre"ed a hi" home and a-en in #u"od, o a po%i#e
    "aion )here he )a" ideni$ied +, he #omp%ainin& )ine"". .e )a" hen inerro&aed
    +, )o po%i#e o$$i#er" $or )o hour"( )hi#h re"u%ed in a "i&ned( )rien #on$e""ion. A
    ria%( he ora% and )rien #on$e""ion" )ere pre"ened o he /ur,. Miranda )a" $ound
    &ui%, o$ -idnappin& and rape and )a" "enen#ed o 01231 ,ear" impri"onmen on ea#h
    #oun. 3n appea%( he Supreme Cour o$ Arizona he%d ha Miranda!" #on"iuiona%
    ri&h" )ere no vio%aed in o+ainin& he #on$e""ion.
    'SSU4: 5heher 6"aemen" o+ained $rom an individua% )ho i" "u+/e#ed o
    #u"odia% po%i#e inerro&aion7 are admi""i+%e a&ain" him in a #rimina% ria% and )heher
    6pro#edure" )hi#h a""ure ha he individua% i" a##orded hi" privi%e&e under he Fi$h
    Amendmen o he Con"iuion no o +e #ompe%%ed o in#riminae him"e%$7 are
    ne#e""ar,.
    .489:The Cour he%d ha 6here #an +e no dou+ ha he Fi$h Amendmen privi%e&e i"
    avai%a+%e ou"ide o$ #rimina% #our pro#eedin&" and "erve" o proe# per"on" in a%%
    "ein&" in )hi#h heir $reedom o$ a#ion i" #urai%ed in an, "i&ni$i#an )a, $rom +ein&
    #ompe%%ed o in#riminae hem"e%ve".7 A" "u#h( 6he pro"e#uion ma, no u"e
    "aemen"( )heher e:#u%paor, or in#u%paor,( "emmin& $rom #u"odia% inerro&aion o$
    he de$endan un%e"" i demon"rae" he u"e o$ pro#edura% "a$e&uard" e$$e#ive o
    "e#ure he privi%e&e a&ain" "e%$2in#riminaion. ;, #u"odia% inerro&aion( )e mean
    *ue"ionin& iniiaed +, %a) en$or#emen o$$i#er" a$er a per"on ha" +een a-en ino
    #u"od, or oher)i"e deprived o$ hi" $reedom o$ a#ion in an, "i&ni$i#an )a,.7
    The Cour $urher he%d ha 6)ihou proper "a$e&uard" he pro#e"" o$ in2#u"od,
    inerro&aion o$ per"on" "u"pe#ed or a##u"ed o$ #rime #onain" inheren%, #ompe%%in&
    pre""ure" )hi#h )or- o undermine he individua%!" )i%% o re"i" and o #ompe% him o
    "pea- )here he )ou%d oher)i"e do "o $ree%,.7 There$ore( a de$endan 6mu" +e )arned
    prior o an, *ue"ionin& ha he ha" he ri&h o remain "i%en( ha an,hin& he "a," #an
    +e u"ed a&ain" him in a #our o$ %a)( ha he ha" he ri&h o he pre"en#e o$ an
    aorne,( and ha i$ he #anno a$$ord an aorne, one )i%% +e appoined $or him prior o
    an, *ue"ionin& i$ he "o de"ire".7
    The Supreme Cour rever"ed he /ud&men o$ he Supreme Cour o$ Arizona in Miranda(
    rever"ed he /ud&men o$ he <e) =or- Cour o$ Appea%" in >i&nera( rever"ed he
    /ud&men o$ he Cour o$ Appea%" $or he <inh Cir#ui in 5e"over( and a$$irmed he
    /ud&men o$ he Supreme Cour o$ Ca%i$ornia in Se)ar.

    Vous aimerez peut-être aussi