Miranda V. Arizona

In 1966, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in the landmark case of Miranda v Arizona and declared that, whenever a person is arrested by the police should be informed prior to questioning the right under the Fifth Amendment (" the Fifth Amendment ") not to make statements that might incriminate himself. we must first fully understand what rights citizens welcome Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. What are the "Miranda" rights?

As a result of the Miranda case, all persons detained by the police should be informed of four things before being questioned:

You have the right to remain silent.

Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.

You have the right to a lawyer.

If you cannot afford an attorney, the court will appoint one.

What are the reasons given for this were to happen? In March 1963, Ernesto Miranda, of Phoenix, Arizona, he was arrested in connection with the rape and kidnapping of a cinema usher 18 years old. in his arrest the peace officer does not

The Arizona Supreme Court upheld the conviction and the case was brought before the Supreme Court of the United States with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The case was discussed between February 28 and March 1, 1966 before the Court of Warren. The Chief Justice, Earl Warren wrote the majority opinion on behalf of himself and judges Hugo Black, William Douglas, William Brennan Jr. and Abe Fortas. The supreme judge John Marshall Harlan wrote the dissenting opinion and was joined by judges Porter Stewart and Byron White. Judge Tom Clark wrote a concurring opinion against. During oral arguments before the Supreme Court, the Miranda case centered around whether were not violated or the rights of the Fifth Amendment of Miranda against self-incrimination and the rights of the Sixth Amendment to consult a lawyer before make