U.S. Supreme Court Case: Miranda v. Arizona
The case under analysis was brought to the United States Supreme Court on the grounds that the convicted was denied in his constitutional rights and was not afforded the opportunity to counsel during his hearings at Arizona Supreme Court. The team of the defendant’s attorneys sought a reconsideration and an overturn of the court’s decision based on the fact that the confession Miranda was inadmissible. The United States Supreme Court was to consider the statements of both parties, the arguments of counsel, and make a final decision on the case.
General Overview of the Case
On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested by the Phoenix, AZ. Police Department on charges relating to the rape of an 18 year old woman; the incident had happened 10 days prior to the arrest (JUSTIA, 2017). After the arrest, police held Miranda for over two hours, in which they interrogated him to the point where he confessed to the crime that he was convicted of. The issue that started all of the legal issues that would develop into one of the most argued precedents in legal history, revolved around the fact that Miranda was never afforded the opportunity for counsel and was never advised of his constitutional rights (Worrall, 2010). Miranda was convicted and sentenced to 30 years in prison but soon appealed his case, which eventually was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court under the grounds that Miranda’s confession was not admissible under the conditions that warranted the confession (Worrall, 2010). Miranda’s initial conviction was the catalyst for the case to eventually be heard and overturned, by the United States Supreme Court.
Attorneys for the Case and Timeline
The Miranda v. Arizona case was argued initially by Miranda’s court appointed attorney, Alvin Moore, who argued that Miranda’s confession was inadmissible due to the circumstances in which Miranda gave it; he argued it was forced and coerced (JUSTIA, 2017). However, since Miranda was convicted initially, his case then went to the Supreme Court in which a full legal team, with multiple cases involved, consisted of many Attorneys. For the defendant the team consisted of: John Flynn, Victor M. Earle III, F. Conger Fawcett and Gordon Ringer (JUSTIA, 2017). For the Prosecution, the team consisted of: Gary K. Nelson, William Seigel, and William Norris (JUSTIA, 2017). These teams of lawyers consisted of the Supreme Court Hearing that was argued from 28 February, 1966, through 2 March, 1966; the case was eventually decided on 13 June, 1966 (JUSTIA, 2017).
The Arguments of Counsel
At the United States Supreme court hearing, Counsel John Flynn argued that the issue before the Court was the admission of evidence in Ernesto Miranda’s case was given in the absence of counsel. After being placed in a confessional Miranda denied any wrong doing and at no time was he advised of his rights as outlined by the state of Arizona and previous Supreme Court decisions such as Escobedo v. Illinois, that …
