miranda v. arizona

dentedaluminum  asked:

What were the main court cases we need to know? I know ones like Brown VBoard, RoeVWade, MarburyVMadison and that SupCourt Justice John Marshall from the late 18th to early 19th century was v impt. Anything else about judiciary stuff?

dred scott v. sandford (1857): establishes that slaves are property and have no rights (now viewed as a horrific mistake)

miranda v. arizona (1966): established rights of the accused (“you have the right to remain silent,” etc., also known as the miranda rights)

korematsu vs. u.s. (1944): ruled that japanese interment was legal (like the dred scott case, now viewed as terrible)

reynolds v. sims (1964): redistricted voting districts so that higher-population areas (read: areas more likely to have poor people/immigrants/poc) were equally represented in state legislatures, rather than being represented based on land area. the theory behind this is “one man, one vote”

gideon v. wainwright (1963): established that all accused have the right to a public defender

plessy v. ferguson (1896): ruled “separate but equal” things for black people were legal. overturned by brown v. board of ed

also, you definitely need to know that earl warren was the supreme court chief justice from 1953-1969 and that he was the force behind all those important ones during the 50s and 60s. very progressive dude. thurgood marshall was the first black justice, sandra day o'connor was the first woman. that’s all the major supreme court stuff i can think of!

50th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona

“You have the right to remain silent…” became a standard line in TV cop shows beginning in the 1960s and 1970s The Supreme Court decision Miranda v. Arizona (1966) affirmed that persons under arrest must be told that they have a Fifth Amendment right to have a lawyer present when talking to police. These words became known as the Miranda Warning. 

The Miranda Warning is now mandatory for police to say while arresting someone. If a person doesn’t receive the Miranda Warning, anything that the person said cannot be used in a court of law. 

Today marks the 50th anniversary of the historic Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court decision. This is a very important case because it explicitly protects our right to an attorney in the 5th Amendment. 

Opinion of the Court by Chief Justice Earl Warren in the Case of Miranda v. Arizona

Learn more about the “Amending America” exhibit  

The warning of the right to remain silent must be accompanied by the explanation that anything said can and will be used against the individual in court. This warning is needed in order to make him aware not only of the privilege, but also of the consequences of forgoing it.
— 

Opinion of the Court by Chief Justice Earl Warren in the Case of Miranda v. Arizona, 06/13/1966

File Unit: Appellate Jurisdiction Case File Miranda v. Arizona, 1965 - 1966Series: Appellate Jurisdiction Case Files, 1792 - 2010Record Group 267: Records of the Supreme Court of the United States, 1772 - 2007

In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Arizona and charged with kidnapping, robbery, and rape. When questioned by police, Miranda confessed. He was tried and convicted based on his confession. Miranda appealed his conviction to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in 1966 that statements made by the accused may not be admitted in court without procedural safeguards. Page 31 from the decision describes two of those safeguards—the accused’s right to remain silent and to have an attorney present during questioning. Selected pages are shown.  (via DocsTeach)

Opinion of the Court by Chief Justice Earl Warren in the Case of Miranda v. Arizona, 06/13/1966, p.1.

Opinion of the Court by Chief Justice Earl Warren in the Case of Miranda v. Arizona, 06/13/1966, p. 31


The Supreme Court’s 1966 order reversing the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Ernesto Miranda’s conviction is now featured at  the Records of Rights exhibit in the David M. Rubenstein Gallery at the National Archives in Washington, DC through June 15, 2016.

The warning of the right to remain silent must be accompanied by the explanation that anything said can and will be used against the individual in court. This warning is needed in order to make him aware not only of the privilege, but also of the consequences of forgoing it.