The United States Supreme Court case of Miranda v. Arizona was one of the most unique cases in US Supreme Court history. The case developed an issue for Congress if there could be a fair trial in States courts with a defendant’s rights not being given after they’ve been detained for their given crime. The result of the Supreme Court case of Miranda v. Arizona helped justify the full knowledge of legal and citizen rights that a defendant has in court. Ernesto Miranda was a Hispanic male who was arrested on March 13, 1963 for kidnapping and raping an eighteen-year-old girl ten days previously based on evidence that was linked by complaining witnesses. Miranda would then be brought to the police station in custody where he would be questioned on his alleged actions by police officers. After two hours of interrogation, he would have a written and signed document of his confession of committing the crime. The evidence and confession were presented at trial
…show more content…
Arizona was in the United States in 1965. It was the case of Vignera v. New York in 1965 which involved the defendant, Vignera, was brought in for his connection in a robbery that occurred at a dress store. He was taken to the police station where he would orally admit to the crime and was placed under custody. Vignera was taken to another police station after and was required to answer more questions that were written down on a document. Both the document and oral confessions were used as evidence at trial and was found guilty of first degree robbery. The ruling of the Supreme Court case of Miranda v. Arizona helped justify the full knowledge of legal and citizen rights that a defendant has in court. The case aided both the detained suspects and police officers/suspects with the defendants being aware of what rights they have while their under custody while legal authority knew and recited what they have to say to an individual that place in
Arizona was in the United States in 1965. It was the case of Vignera v. New York in 1965 which involved the defendant, Vignera, was brought in for his connection in a robbery that occurred at a dress store. He was taken to the police station where he would orally admit to the crime and was placed under custody. Vignera was taken to another police station after and was required to answer more questions that were written down on a document. Both the document and oral confessions were used as evidence at trial and was found guilty of first degree robbery. The ruling of the Supreme Court case of Miranda v. Arizona helped justify the full knowledge of legal and citizen rights that a defendant has in court. The case aided both the detained suspects and police officers/suspects with the defendants being aware of what rights they have while their under custody while legal authority knew and recited what they have to say to an individual that place in