Reply to Thread

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snattlerake" data-source="post: 4080513" data-attributes="member: 44288">An interesting tidbit almost no one knows.Ernesto Miranda was not a very nice guy.  He was a Mexican immigrant arrested for kidnapping and ****.  During the investigation and subsequent line up, he was identified by his victim.  Miranda was told this information and confessed to the crimes.  He also signed his confession which indicated his statement was made knowingly and voluntarily.Miranda was unaware that a defendant could remain silent and could request to speak with an attorney before being questioned in connection to the crimes. Miranda's signed confession was used as the primary piece of evidence during his trial and led to his conviction and sentencing of <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/384/436/#annotation" target="_blank">20-30 years in prison</a>. During the initial trial, however, there was an objection to his confession being introduced as evidence. Because Miranda was ignorant of his rights <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/384/436/#annotation" target="_blank">against self-incrimination</a>, the confession should have been deemed involuntary. The case was appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court where the lower court’s ruling was upheld. Miranda’s case was appealed again and landed before the United States Supreme Court in early 1966. At this time, the high court reversed the lower courts’ rulings and sided with Miranda, 5-4. The court determined that due to the intimidating situation of a police interrogation, suspects need to explicitly waive their Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment right to an attorney for their protection. It was also acknowledged that should the suspect invoke either of these rights, the interrogation must cease until an attorney arrives. Miranda was granted a <a href="https://www.loc.gov/law/help/digitized-books/miranda-v-arizona/miranda-timeline.php" target="_blank">new trial</a> in 1967, where he still found guilty of the same crimes, despite the omission of his signed confession from evidence. Ernesto Miranda did, indeed, get a new trial based on the Supreme Court ruling, and his original confession was thrown out. However, based on the evidence, Miranda was again convicted of kidnapping and ****, and served 11 years in prison before being paroled in 1972. In 1976, at the age of 34, Miranda was stabbed to death in a barroom brawl. Police arrested a suspect in the killing who, after choosing to exercise his Miranda Right to remain silent, was released without being charged with the crime.I remember the reaction in the classroom when this news was brought to light.  At the time, most cops thought they were being reined in, and hamstrung when dealing with suspects.  The class was college level Arrest, Search and Seizure.</blockquote>

Verification