Great Wall Institute: The Process of the Great Wall of Los AngelesMain MenuResearch of the DecadesResearch1960s Illustration DevelopmentIllustration DevelopmentPlaylists of the DecadesPlaylistssparcinla.org185fc5b2219f38c7b63f42d87efaf997127ba4fcGreat Wall Institute - Social and Public Art Resource Center (SPARC)
1966: Miranda v. Arizona
1media/Miranda Rights_thumb.jpeg2022-08-01T18:13:21+00:00Gina Leonf0ac362b4453e23ee8a94b1a49fbeeafde2a0a4911In a 5-4 Supreme Court decision Miranda v. Arizona (1966) ruled that an arrested individual is entitled to rights against self-discrimination and to an attorney under the 5th and 6th Amendments of the United States Constitution. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) culminated in the famed “Miranda rights” requirement during arrests. On March 13, 1963, police arrested Ernesto Miranda on charges of rape and kidnapping after a witness identified him in Phoenix, Arizona. During his two-hour interrogation, police did not advise Miranda on his constitutional rights to an attorney nor against self-incrimination. Nonetheless, he signed a written confession affirming knowledge of these rights and admitting to crimes. This confession led to a June 27, 1963 conviction of rape and kidnapping as well as a robbery pending on Miranda’s record. Judge McFate sentenced Miranda to a maximum fifty-five years in prison. Miranda’s lawyer, Alvin Moore, appealed the case to the Arizona Supreme Court, which reaffirmed the lower court’s decision, arguing that police had not violated Miranda’s constitutional rights in procuring a confession without the presence of a lawyer. The Supreme Court ruled differently on June 13, 1966. It held that presenting Miranda’s confession as evidence violated his constitutional rights under the 5th and 6th Amendments. The 5th Amendment protects from self-incrimination and requires the police to inform the detainee about his or her rights while the 6th guarantees criminal suspects rights to a personal or state issued attorney. Chief Justice Earl Warren articulated that the court permitted confessions or self-incriminating statements in criminal trials only when suspects issued them deliberately after police inform of their rights. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) included four dissenters and three separate dissenting opinions. After Arizona’s ruling was overturned, the state court retried the case without presenting Miranda’s confession. They convicted him of the same charges, and sentenced him to a maximum 30 years in prison. Four years after his release on parole, a killer, who did receive his Miranda rights, stabbed Miranda to death.plain2022-08-01T18:13:21+00:001966Gina Leonf0ac362b4453e23ee8a94b1a49fbeeafde2a0a49