Miranda Vs. Arizona

In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix, Arizona for armed robbery, kidnapping, and raping a slightly retarded eighteen-year-old woman. While he was in police custody he signed a written confession to the crime. After the conviction, his lawyers appealed on the grounds that Miranda did not know he was protected from self-incrimination (Gribben, 2001).

Does the police practice of interrogating individuals without notifying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment? The Fifth Amendment states, “No person shall he held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived life, liberty, and property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation (Murphy, 2002).

Some topics in this essay:
Fifth Amendment, Supreme Court, Sixth Amendment, Phoenix Arizona, Columbia Encyclopedia, Miranda Rights, Lee Walker, Escobedo-vs-Illinois Escobedo, Ernesto Miranda, Earl Warren, supreme court, fifth amendment, gribben 2001, miranda rights, ernesto miranda, miranda’s confession, arizona supreme court, mauro 2000, written confession, set trial, court ruled, columbia encyclopedia 2001,