Respuesta :
Answer:
Responses will vary. A sample response follows: In 1966, Ernesto Miranda confessed to kidnapping; however, the police never informed Mr. Miranda of his Fifth Amendment right to an attorney. Therefore, his confession was obtained illegally. The jurors in the court of first instance did not find this argument compelling enough to absolve him of guilt, and he was convicted of kidnapping. Mr. Miranda’s attorney then went to the intermediate appellate courts. The judges on these courts upheld the decision of the lower courts. The decision was appealed again, but this time to the state supreme court. Once again, this court upheld the decision. After all of the state means for appeal had been exhausted, Mr. Miranda’s attorney took the case to the federal Supreme Court, which overturned the decisions of all three tiers of the state courts.
Explanation:
I took the test
In Miranda v. Arizona case the decisions by the state court systems varies by different courts, while during trial he was found convict, but the decision of the Supreme Court was against the conviction.
Miranda v. Arizona:
At trial, the prosecution's case consisted solely of his confession, and therefore, Miranda was convicted.
He appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, claiming that the police had unconstitutionally obtained his confession, the court disagreed, and upheld the conviction.
Miranda than appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reviewed the case in 1966, and found that Miranda (a culprit) was not informed of his rights prior to the police interrogation
Supreme Court maintained that detained criminal suspects, prior to police questioning, must be informed of their constitutional right and against self-incrimination.
Therefore, we can understand how this case exemplified different steps of the state court system.
Learn More about Miranda v. Arizona:
https://brainly.com/question/1319147
