CRJS 251 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
CASE BRIEF ASSIGNMENT
Robert Taylor
Case Citation Miranda v. Arizona. 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Facts – The facts of this case are that Ernesto Miranda was arrested and identified in a police
lineup. He was charged with kidnapping and rape. He was interrogated by police while in their
custody; he was not informed of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. During this interrogation
he confessed in writing to the crime.
History – The confession of the crime was in writing, and was shown to the jury of the case, and
the jury found Miranda guilty, and sentenced him to 20-30 years in prison for each count of the
crime. Miranda and his defense attorney appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court. The attorney
argued that Miranda’s rights were violated because the police never advised him of those rights.
The Arizona Supreme Court denied his appeal and upheld the lower court’s decision. During
1965 the Supreme Court of the United States decided to hear the Miranda’s case along with three
other cases. (Vignera v. New York, Westover v. United States, and California v. Stewart.).
Because Miranda’s was the first on the list of cases, the decision became the name of Miranda.
Issue(s) –
1. Should the police be required to notify the arrested of their Fifth Amendment
constitutional rights against self-incrimination?
2. What should the role of the police be in protecting the rights of the accused from the Fifth
and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution?
3. Should the police be responsible for letting the accused know that they have the right to a
lawyer prior to interrogation?
4. Should the accused be notified of their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment Due
Process Law?
Holding(s) –
1. Yes. Every person should have the right not to incriminate themselves.
2. The role of the police should be to notify the accused of their rights because it is the
accused constitutional right, and even though some think that we all should know this, there
are people that are uneducated, and don’t understand what their rights are, and the police
should not be allowed to use this against them.
3. Yes. Every person should be advised of their right to a lawyer, even if they cannot afford
one, this will help to ensure that their constitutional rights have not been violated.
4. Yes. Because this will allow the accused to exercise their rights that show “innocent until
proven guilty”, this will ensure that the police cannot coerce a confession out of them.
CASE BRIEF ASSIGNMENT
Robert Taylor
Case Citation Miranda v. Arizona. 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Facts – The facts of this case are that Ernesto Miranda was arrested and identified in a police
lineup. He was charged with kidnapping and rape. He was interrogated by police while in their
custody; he was not informed of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. During this interrogation
he confessed in writing to the crime.
History – The confession of the crime was in writing, and was shown to the jury of the case, and
the jury found Miranda guilty, and sentenced him to 20-30 years in prison for each count of the
crime. Miranda and his defense attorney appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court. The attorney
argued that Miranda’s rights were violated because the police never advised him of those rights.
The Arizona Supreme Court denied his appeal and upheld the lower court’s decision. During
1965 the Supreme Court of the United States decided to hear the Miranda’s case along with three
other cases. (Vignera v. New York, Westover v. United States, and California v. Stewart.).
Because Miranda’s was the first on the list of cases, the decision became the name of Miranda.
Issue(s) –
1. Should the police be required to notify the arrested of their Fifth Amendment
constitutional rights against self-incrimination?
2. What should the role of the police be in protecting the rights of the accused from the Fifth
and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution?
3. Should the police be responsible for letting the accused know that they have the right to a
lawyer prior to interrogation?
4. Should the accused be notified of their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment Due
Process Law?
Holding(s) –
1. Yes. Every person should have the right not to incriminate themselves.
2. The role of the police should be to notify the accused of their rights because it is the
accused constitutional right, and even though some think that we all should know this, there
are people that are uneducated, and don’t understand what their rights are, and the police
should not be allowed to use this against them.
3. Yes. Every person should be advised of their right to a lawyer, even if they cannot afford
one, this will help to ensure that their constitutional rights have not been violated.
4. Yes. Because this will allow the accused to exercise their rights that show “innocent until
proven guilty”, this will ensure that the police cannot coerce a confession out of them.
