Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
James Bartley (1870–1909) is the central figure in a late nineteenth-century story according to which he was swallowed whole by a sperm whale. He was found still living days later in the stomach of the whale, which was dead from harpooning. The story originated of an anonymous form, began to appear in American newspapers.
Ernesto Arturo Miranda (March 9, 1941 – January 31, 1976) was an American laborer whose criminal conviction was set aside in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona, which ruled that criminal suspects must be informed of their right against self-incrimination and their right to consult with an attorney before being questioned ...
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that law enforcement in the United States must warn a person of their constitutional rights before interrogating them, or else the person's statements cannot be used as evidence at their trial.
[7] The first Supreme Court case to do so was Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), [3] which found that the right to counsel enshrined in the Sixth Amendment encompassed criminal proceedings in state courts. [8] His writings were arguably the most influential in Miranda v. Arizona (1966). [3]
March 13: Phoenix Police arrest Ernesto Miranda without informing him of his rights. This leads to the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona. [50] Municipal golf course built in Papago Park. Legend City amusement park in business. US Supreme Court upholds Arizona rights to Colorado River water. [50] 1964 Phoenix Municipal Stadium ...
Case history; Prior: United States v. Dickerson, 971 F. Supp. 1023 (E.D. Va. 1997); reversed, 166 F.3d 667 (4th Cir. 1999).: Holding; The mandate of Miranda v.Arizona that a criminal suspect be advised of certain constitutional rights governs the admissibility at trial of the suspect's statements, not the requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 3501 that such statements simply be voluntarily given.
In a 6-3 per curiam decision, the Court ruled that Prysock's rights were adequately conveyed and that Miranda v.Arizona did not require a "talismanic incantation." [2]In a dissent authored by Justice John P. Stevens, he argued that Sergeant Byrd left out crucial information that Prysock had the right to the services of an attorney regardless of his parent's willingness to hire one.
Pointer's case was part of a series that defined how the Sixth Amendment applied to defendants in state courts. The Supreme Court took this case to decide if failure to appoint an attorney to represent Pointer at the preliminary hearing unconstitutionally denied him the assistance of counsel as it had then-recently decided in Gideon v.