Miranda v Arizona

Escobedo v Illinois

By Austin Lallier

THESIS

In the 1960s two major cases changed the way law enforcement could interrogate defendants in custody, they defined and articulated the rights that were given to all citizens nearly 200 years earlier.

Warren Courts

• Court cases during 1960’s • Went against criminal justice and police• Rights of the accused• Shifted power out of justices and police officers hands

Mapp v. Ohio, 1961, Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963, and Escobedo v. Illinois, 1964, Miranda v. Arizona

http://blsciblogs.baruch.cuny.edu/his1005spring2011/2011/03/page/2/

Escobedo v Illinois

• Danny Escobedo arrested for suspected murder of brother in law

• While questioned was denied the right to a lawyer

• After 14 hours gave evidence of knowledge of murder

• Lawyer went to court house but still denied.

Court Case

• Later not convicted because didn’t follow 5th and 6th amendment

• Police lost control of rights• Escobedo was released from jail and his

confession did not count

Miranda v Arizona Ernesto Miranda

On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested linking him to the kidnapping and rape of an 18-year-old girl ten days earlier.

After two hours of interrogation by police officers, Miranda signed a confession to the rape charge

Miranda was convicted of rape and kidnapping and sentenced to 20 to 30 years imprisonment on each charge, with sentences to run concurrently.

BUT Chief Justice Earl Warren, a former prosecutor, delivered the opinion of the Court, ruling that due to the interrogation by no confession could be admissible under the Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment.

Created Miranda rights which are “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.”

Effects of both cases

• This effected the power law enforcement could interrogate suspects

• It limited their ability to gain convictions on likely suspects of horrible crimes which caused corruption in the police force to seek justice.

http://mrortlieb.weebly.com/due-process-cases.html

Questions

• How are these two cases simular concerning the rights of the accused?

• How do these court cases effect the rights of the police force?

• What are the slight differences concerning the two cases?

• What is the Warren Court, and how is Warrens opinion represented in the two cases?

Works Cited

• http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar23.html• http://

www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/criminal-procedure/criminal-procedure-keyed-to-israel/police-interrogation-and-confessions/escobedo-v-illinois/

• http://www.socialstudieshelp.com/lesson_106_notes.htm