User:Cenzer

Nate Cenzer Period 4 Legal Brief: Miranda vs. Arizona

Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 February 28, 1966

Facts of the Case: Becky Johnson was walking home for her job when a man in a car pulled up a little ways in front of her. They were the only two people on the street but instead of running Patricia just kept on walking. As they passed each other the man (Ernesto Miranda) grabbed her and put his hand over her mouth. He warned her not to scream as he dragged her into his car. She pleaded for her freedom as he drove into the desert but Miranda did not oblige. Once they reached Miranda’s chosen spot he raped Becky. He then took the money from her purse, and drove them back to her house. Miranda dropped her off at her house and then drove away. Later when she was taken to the hospital the physicians found traces of semen inside her, that and the description that Becky had given lead the police to search for a 27-28year old Mexican man with a mustache weighing around 175lbs. and being a little under 6feet tall. During the police questioning of her relatives one of them said that they had seen a car matching the description that Becky gave of the rapists car. The relative said that the license plate of the car was DLF-312. That car was traced to Miranda’s girlfriend, but the neighbors said that Miranda and his girlfriend had moved out two days earlier. Using the postal system the police tracked down the couple. They went up to the door and asked for Miranda, when he came out they took him down to the station for questioning. When he got there they put him in a lineup but it was unsuccessful. They then took him into an interrogation room. The police did not inform Miranda of his right to an attorney or of his right to remain silent. After a few minutes of interrogation they extracted a confession, and even got him to make a written one. With the confession as evidence the police soon got a conviction. After the cases was decided Alvin Moore a very successful attorney was reviewing Miranda’s case and decided he would fight the case. When the case went back to trial and the confession was presented as evidence Moore objected, he said that the confession was in violation of the Fifth Amendment. After a few appeals the case made its way to the US Supreme Court.

The Law: The Fifth Amendment “No person shall be held…in any criminal case to be a witness against himself…”

Legal Question: Was Ernesto Miranda aware of his right to remain silent (The Fifth Amendment)

Arguments: