In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested for robbery and rape. After he was found guilty in a lower court, Miranda appealed on the issue that the police should have told him that he could have an attorney present during the interrogation. In 1966, Miranda won his appeal to the United States Supreme Court.
Miranda v. Arizona is still considered a landmark case among the rich history of U.S. Supreme Court cases. In essence, the court ruled that law enforcement officers must issue a statement, which has become known as the Miranda warning, prior to a police interrogation.
1,) Briefly describe the relationship between Escobedo and the Miranda Laws.
2.) What was the impact of both decisions in terms of interviews and interrogations of a suspect?
3.) What statue did congress pass two years after the Miranda ruling?
4.) How did the statue change or affect the Miranda ruling?
1. Escobedo was the defendant in Escobedo v. Illinois, where he was charged with murder. Although earlier case law, Giddeon v. Wainwright, established a defendant's right to counsel after indictment, there was no precedent for suspects. After implicating himself in the murder with which he was charged, while still a suspect, and without the presence of an attorney during interrogation, Escobedo appealed the decision and the ...
Information on Escobedo, Miranda, Dickerson, and implications of each. Additionally, references to established case law resources.