Ernesto Arturo Miranda (March 9, 1941 - January 31, 1976) was a worker whose convictions for kidnapping, rape, and armed robbery allegations based on his confession under police interrogation were set aside in the Supreme Supreme Court case of Miranda v. Arizona, who decided that criminal suspects should be informed of their right to self-torture and their right to consult a lawyer before being questioned by the police. This warning is known as Miranda warning.
After the Supreme Court decision ruled out Miranda's initial belief, the state of Arizona tried again. In the second trial, with his confession excluded from the evidence, he was again punished.
Video Ernesto Miranda
Biography
Early life
Ernesto Arturo Miranda is a Mexican-American citizen born in Mesa, Arizona, on March 9, 1941. Miranda started getting into trouble when she was in elementary school. Shortly after his mother died, his father remarried. Miranda and her father did not get along well; he keeps his distance from his brother and stepmother as well. Miranda's first criminal conviction was in his eighth year. The following year, he was found guilty of robbery and sentenced to one year in reform school.
In 1956, about a month after he was released from reform school, Arizona State Industrial School for Boys (ASISB), he was entangled law once again and returned to ASISB. After his second release from reform school he moved to Los Angeles, California. Within months of his arrival in LA, Miranda was arrested (but not punished) on suspicion of armed robbery and multiple sex offenses. After two and a half years in detention, 18-year-old Miranda was extradited back to Arizona.
He passed the southern US for several months, spent time in jail in Texas living on the streets with no money or shelter, and was arrested in Nashville, Tennessee, for driving a stolen car. Miranda was sentenced to one year and one day in a federal prison system because she had taken a stolen vehicle across the state line. He finished his sentence in Chillicothe, Ohio, and then in Lompoc, California.
Several years later Miranda kept getting out of jail, working in various places, until she became a laborer in the night loading dock for the Phoenix production company. At that time he began living with Twila Hoffman, a 29-year-old mother and a girl by another man, from whom she was unable to divorce.
Unauthorized recognition; Miranda v. Arizona
On March 13, 1963, Miranda's truck was found and a license plate recognized by the brother of a kidnap victim and 18-year-old rape, Lois Ann Jameson (the victim had given the brother a description). With its description of cars and partial police numbers, Phoenix police officers Carroll Cooley and Wilfred Young confront Miranda, who volunteered to accompany them to the station house and participate in the ranks. At the time, Miranda was an attractive person, and was not officially in custody.
After the lineup, when Miranda asked how he did it, the police implied that he was positively identified. Police received recognition from Miranda after two hours of interrogation, without informing him of his rights. After not surrendering to the officer, Miranda is brought to the victim of a beating for positive voice identification. Asked by the officer, in his presence, whether this was the victim, Miranda said, "That's the girl." The victim stated that Miranda's voice matches the voice of the culprit.
Miranda then wrote her confession. At the top of each sheet is a certified print that "... this statement has been made voluntarily and my own free will, without threats, coercion or immunity promises and with full knowledge of my legal rights, understands my statement for cans and will be used against me. "Despite the above statement that Miranda confessed" with full knowledge of my legal rights, "he was not informed of his right to have a lawyer present or his right to remain silent. Alvin Moore, 73, was assigned to represent him in court. The trial took place in mid-June 1963 before the Maricopa District High Court Judge, Yale McFate.
Moore objected to entering Miranda's confession as evidence during the trial but rejected. Mostly because of the confession, Miranda was convicted of rape and kidnapping and sentenced to 20 to 30 years on both charges. Moore filed an appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court, but the belief was enforced.
Pleading as a poor man, Miranda filed his petition for a certiorari statement, or requested a review of his case to the US Supreme Court in June 1965. After Alvin Moore was unable to take the case for health reasons, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) attorney Robert J. Corcoran , asked John J. Flynn, a criminal defense lawyer, to serve pro bono, along with his colleague, John P. Frank, and associates Paul G. Ulrich and Robert A. Jensen of the Lewis & Roca in Phoenix to represent Miranda. They wrote a 2,500 word petition for certiorari stating that the fifth Amendment Miranda right has been violated and sent to the United States Supreme Court.
Miranda v. Arizona
In November 1965, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Miranda case, Miranda v. Arizona , along with three other similar cases to remove all misunderstandings made by Escobedo v. Illinois . Previous case has decided that:
In the circumstances of the case, where police investigation is no longer a general inquiry into unsolved crimes, it begins to focus on certain suspects in police custody who have been denied the opportunity to consult with their counselors and who have not been warned. His constitutional right to remain silent, the defendant has been denied assistance from a counselor who violated the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, and no statements were issued by the police during interrogations that could be used against him in court. Crooker v. California , 357 US 433, and Cicenia v. Lagay , 357 US 504, distinguished, and, to the extent that they may be inconsistent with instant cases, they are not in control. Pp. 479-492.
In January 1966, Flynn and Frank filed their argument stating that the Sixth Amendment of Miranda's Change to a lawyer has been violated by the Phoenix Police Department. Two weeks later the state of Arizona responded by stating that Miranda's rights were not violated. The first day of the case was on the last day of February 1966. Due to three other cases and other information, the case had a second day of oral argument on March 1, 1966.
John Flynn and John Paul Frank for Miranda described the case and then stated that Miranda was not advised of her right to remain silent when she was arrested and questioned, adding the Fifth Amendment argument in her case. Flynn argues that an emotionally disturbed man like Miranda, who has limited education, should not be expected to know his Fifth Amendment is not to incriminate himself.
Gary Nelson speaks for the people of Arizona, arguing that this is not a matter of the Fifth Amendment but only an attempt to expand the Sixth Change Decision Escobedo . He urged the judges to clarify their position, but not to push the limits of Escobedo too far. He then told the court that forcing the police to advise the suspects of their rights would seriously hinder public safety.
The second day related arguments from related cases. Thurgood Marshall, a former NAACP lawyer, was the last person to argue. In his capacity as a Public Defender, he presented the Johnson administration's view of the case: that the government has no resources to appoint a lawyer to any poor person accused of a crime.
Justice Earl Warren wrote an opinion on Miranda v. Arizona . The decision supports Miranda. It states that:
The person in custody must, before interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that whatever 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 ask a lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is unable, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him.
The opinion was released on June 13, 1966. Because of the authorities, the police department across the country began issuing Miranda warning cards to their officers to read. They read:
You have the right to remain silent. If you give up the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in court. You have the right to get a lawyer and have an attorney present during the interrogation. If you can not afford a lawyer, one will be given to you at no cost. During the interrogation you may decide at any time to exercise these rights, not answering any questions or making any statements. Do you understand these rights as I have read them for you?
Life after Miranda v. Arizona
The Supreme Court ruled out Miranda's belief, which was contaminated by the use of confessions obtained through inaccurate interrogations. The state of Arizona repeats it. At the second hearing, his confession was not included in the evidence, but he was again convicted, based on the testimony given by his undisputed legal wife. He was sentenced to 20 to 30 years imprisonment.
Miranda was released in 1972. After her release, she started selling a signature card
On January 31, 1976, after being released for violating his parole, a violent fight broke out in a bar in Phoenix. Miranda received a deadly wound from a knife, and she was declared dead upon arrival at Good Samaritan Hospital. Some Miranda cards were found in the person. Miranda is buried in Mesa City Cemetery in Mesa, Arizona.
Maps Ernesto Miranda
References
External links
- TV Court
- Lewis & amp; Company History Roca, Miranda Vs. Arizona at Wayback Machine (archived May 14, 2008)
- MIRANDA v. ARIZONA, 384 U.S 436 (1966)
- Casing Miranda
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments