{"page":"\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\nVideo\n
\n

\nMiranda v. Arizona\n

\n
\n
\nGet Free Access for 10 Days!\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
×
\n\n\n
\n\nPublisher:\n\nMr. Beat\n\n\n
\n
\nPhoenix, 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,...\nPhoenix, 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 this gave too much power to suspects and would make police interrogation work much more difficult. They were afraid it might be more difficult to convict criminals. After the decision, police across the country had to inform suspects of their rights after they arrested them. They became known as the Miranda rights or Miranda warnings. (clip) After the Miranda case, the Court tried to strike a balance between public safety and the rights of the accused. Several later decisions ended up granting exceptions to the Miranda warnings. Some of these exceptions were BIG exceptions, actually. Still, Miranda v. Arizona has had a huge impact on law enforcement in the United States by empowering those accused of a crime. According to several studies, the decision hasn't affected detectives' abilities to solve crime much. So whatever happened to Ernesto Miranda? Even though the Supreme Court threw out his original trial, he was once again placed on trial in Arizona using different evidence. That evidence? A woman who lived with Miranda during the time of the offense testified that he had confessed to her about committing the crime. In 1967, he was again found guilty and sentenced up to 30 years in prison. However, he was released early due to good behavior, in 1972. Miranda returned to his old neighborhood and made a living autographing what became known as \"Miranda cards,\" which contained the text of the warning read to suspects. Tragically, he was stabbed to death in a bar fight on January 31, 1976. Police arrested a dude suspected of murdering Miranda. Ironically, that dude, unlike Miranda, exercised his right to remain silent and was later released after there was no evidence to prove he did it.\n
\n
\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

Resource Details

\n
\n
\n
\n
Curator Rating
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Educator Rating
Not yet Rated
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Media Length
\n
5:12
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Grade
6th - 12th
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Subjects
Social Studies & History
4 more...
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Media Type
Instructional Videos
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Source:
\n
\nMr. Beat\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Date
\n
2017
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n
Language
English
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Audiences
For Teacher Use
2 more...
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Usage Permissions
Fine Print: Educational Use
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

Additional Materials

\n
\n\nSign in or Join Now
\" data-title=\"Get Full Access\" data-container=\"body\" rel=\"popover\" tabindex=\"0\" href=\"/subscription/new\">Video Transcript\n
\n
\n\nSign in or Join Now
\" data-title=\"Get Full Access\" data-container=\"body\" rel=\"popover\" tabindex=\"0\" href=\"/subscription/new\">Video Preview\n
\n
\n
\n

Concepts

\n
\n
evidence, courts, crime, arizona, police, rights
\n
\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

Additional Tags

\n
\n
making, informed, attack, 30 years, miranda warnings, difficult, confessed, make, confession, part, mr. beat, remain silent, court, accused, miranda, interrogation, officers, prison, found guilty, lawyer, video
\n
\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

Classroom Considerations

\n
Best For: Explaining a topic
Video is ad-free
\n
\n
\n

Educator Ratings

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\nShow resource details\n
\n
\n\" data-title=\"Get Full Access\" data-container=\"body\" rel=\"popover\" tabindex=\"0\" aria-label=\"Play video: Miranda v. Arizona\" href=\"/subscription/new\">\"Miranda\n\n
\n
\n
\n\n\n\n"}