Ernesto right against self incrimination. It was

Ernesto Miranda was arrested after evidence was presented that he was involved in a kidnapping and rape. He confessed to the crimes after being interrogated without the knowledge he could have a lawyer present, he could remain silent, and anything he said could be used against him in court. His confession was used as evidence in court and after his sentencing Miranda argued that his confession was involuntary because he did not know his rights. He appealed the case with the Arizona Supreme Court, and they rejected it. His case was appealed to the US Supreme court, where it was decided that a person must be told their right to have an attorney present, and their right to remain silent when questioned.
This case was based on the fifth amendment right against self incrimination. It was decided that in order for someone to exercise their right against self incrimination they must be aware of their other rights (the right to a lawyer, the right to remain silent, etc.).
The four Miranda warnings established by the court are that the person has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in court, that he has the right to an attorney, and that if indigent he has the right to a lawyer free of charge.
The Miranda warning for juveniles differs from that of adults in that juveniles are read their miranda rights when they are taken into custody and their parents are immediately informed, if possible, that the child is in custody and what rights the child has.
The two specific circumstances that must be present in order to trigger the Miranda requirements are that the person must be in police custody (feel unable to leave) and be subjected to an interrogation.

x

Hi!
I'm Gerard!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out