Case Background Information
In the year 1965 the Miranda v. Arizona case was presented to the supreme court that finalized with a result of 5-4. The defendant waived their rights after being given them. In this case the Miranda are the sited rights that an individual has while getting arrested or incremented. The full name for it is the Miranda warning but though the years it has changed into the Miranda rights.
These rights are also under the constitution, therefore once the defendant is being interrogated they can invoke them. On march 13, 1963, a guy named Ernesto Miranda was arrested because the police believed that they had evidence that linked him to the rape of a 17 years old women that apparently occurred 10 days before his arrest date. Ernesto signed a confession, before he signed them they didn't read him his rights, such as being able to remain silent or the right to an attorney etc..
He went into courtrooms where his lawyer objected the use of his confession because he didn't believe that it was voluntarily given. The court overruled the confession and Ernesto was looking at around 20-30 years in prison. This was 20-30 years for each one of the charges, not as an overall time period he would get sentenced to. His lawyer filed an appeal to the Arizona Supreme Courts demanding that his confession shouldn't have been used because it wasn't voluntary. The court looked at his case and released that the confection was valid due to the 5th amendment if he was told his rights and choose to waive them.
This case relates to the US constitution because of the issue in it overall, the Miranda rights is the main reason as to why though. Their main purpose is to be read and to let those that are being arrested know what they can cannot do. Without being told these rights an individual such as Ernesto in this case is unaware of what he’s options are about the situation that he is in.
These rights are also under the constitution, therefore once the defendant is being interrogated they can invoke them. On march 13, 1963, a guy named Ernesto Miranda was arrested because the police believed that they had evidence that linked him to the rape of a 17 years old women that apparently occurred 10 days before his arrest date. Ernesto signed a confession, before he signed them they didn't read him his rights, such as being able to remain silent or the right to an attorney etc..
He went into courtrooms where his lawyer objected the use of his confession because he didn't believe that it was voluntarily given. The court overruled the confession and Ernesto was looking at around 20-30 years in prison. This was 20-30 years for each one of the charges, not as an overall time period he would get sentenced to. His lawyer filed an appeal to the Arizona Supreme Courts demanding that his confession shouldn't have been used because it wasn't voluntary. The court looked at his case and released that the confection was valid due to the 5th amendment if he was told his rights and choose to waive them.
This case relates to the US constitution because of the issue in it overall, the Miranda rights is the main reason as to why though. Their main purpose is to be read and to let those that are being arrested know what they can cannot do. Without being told these rights an individual such as Ernesto in this case is unaware of what he’s options are about the situation that he is in.
Outcome
Ernesto's conviction was overturned due to the fact that he's rights were not stated to him when he was being arrested and they used the confession that they made him sign as evidence, which was not legible. His case won with a result of 5-4. There were other cases that were also going through the system that fell under the accused not having been told their rights, but because of it's success and the fact that this was the frist case they named the right after Ernesto Miranda. They are now known as the Miranda rights.
Commentary
I think that this case was very interesting. Overall it lead to a great right that is used all around America, but I think that having let an accused man go shouldn't have been an outcome of it. The case was very solid after the lawyer stands up about the confession being called fake and his client not being told his rights. I think that as the court they should have had a different approach towards getting this right out there and still finding a way to prove Ernesto guilty or innocent depending on the truth. He did end up signing a confession after all so technically I feel like we just let a bad man roam the streets instead of making him pay for his crime. And he will never even be forgotten now because he's name was used in the rights and this should not have been the case.