LBRY Block Explorer

LBRY Claims • where-do-your-miranda-rights-come-from

e3ef4bcce791abcea692e748bac9a96fa2cf4a29

Published By
Created On
10 Dec 2022 00:08:42 UTC
Transaction ID
Cost
Safe for Work
Free
Yes
Where Do Your Miranda Rights Come From? | Miranda v. Arizona
Want a specific SCOTUS case covered? Your idea gets picked when you donate on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/iammrbeat
Mr. Beat's band: http://electricneedleroom.net/
Mr. Beat on Twitter: https://twitter.com/beatmastermatt

In episode 6 of Supreme Court Briefs, you have the right to remain silent. Mr. Beat looks at the origins of the Miranda rights. I'll give you a hint- they are named after a guy named Miranda.

Check out cool primary sources here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1965/759

Phoenix, Arizona
March 13, 1963
Police arrest Ernesto Miranda, a suspect linked to the kidnapping and rape of an 18-year old woman ten days earlier. In a police lineup, the victim identified Miranda as the attacker. For two hours, officers aggressively interrogated Miranda about the attack. The officers did not tell Miranda that he did not have to answer the questions, nor did they allow him to call a lawyer. Hmmmm….I guess Miranda didn’t pay attention when his teacher taught him about the Bill of Rights in government class.

Anyway, the officers broke Miranda down, and he confessed to the crime, even signing a statement that described the details of the attack. When this confession was later used in court, of course Miranda was found guilty, even though his lawyer argued that the police pressured him to confess. Miranda was sentenced to up to 30 years of prison.

Miranda appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, based on the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. You know, the part of the Fifth Amendment that says you cannot be forced to testify against yourself, aka the right to remain silent, and the part of the Sixth Amendment that says you have a right to an attorney. But the Arizona Supreme Court agreed with the lower court.

Welp, Miranda appealed again, and the Supreme Court reviewed the case in June 1966. And this was a tough one. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that Miranda’s confession could not be used as evidence because the officers had denied his 5th and 6th amendment rights. Chief Justice Earl Warren gave the opinion of the Court. Warren brought up that the police done messed up by misleading Miranda and not making it clear to him his rights. Warren said,
“The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him.”
Hmmm, that kind of sounds familiar.

The justices on the Court who disagreed with the majority generally argued that the Constitution didn’t say anything about making a suspect aware about his or her rights. They also argued t
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ7ooBJ_DEU
Author
Content Type
Unspecified
video/mp4
Language
English
Open in LBRY

More from the publisher

Controlling
VIDEO
THE A
Controlling
VIDEO
COLOR
VIDEO
HOW L
Controlling
VIDEO
THE P
Controlling
VIDEO
BEN F
Controlling
VIDEO
WHY D
Controlling
VIDEO
A BRI
Controlling
VIDEO
LIFE
Controlling
VIDEO
SUMMI