Miranda vs Arizona Facts: On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested, by the Phoenix Police Department, based

on circumstantial evidence linking him to the kidnapping and rape of a 17 year old girl 10 days earlier. After two hours of interrogation by police officers, Miranda signed a confession to the rape charge on forms that included the typed statement "I do hereby swear that I make this statement voluntarily and of my own free will, with no threats, coercion, or promises of immunity, and with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me." However, at no time was Miranda told of his right to counsel, and he was not advised of his right to remain silent or that his statements would be used against him during the interrogation before being presented with the form on which he was asked to write out the confession he had already given orally. At trial, when prosecutors offered Miranda's written confession as evidence, his court-appointed lawyer, Alvin Moore, objected that because of these facts, the confession was not truly voluntary and should be excluded. Moore's objection was overruled and based on this confession and other evidence, Miranda was convicted of rape and kidnapping and sentenced to 20 to 30 years imprisonment on each charge, with sentences to run concurrently. Moore filed Miranda's appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court claiming that Miranda's confession was not fully voluntary and should not have been admitted into the court proceedings. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision to admit the confession in State v. Miranda, 401 P.2d 721 (Ariz. 1965). In affirming, the Arizona Supreme Court emphasized heavily the fact that Miranda did not specifically request an attorney.
Held: The Court held that both inculpatory and exculpatory statements made in response to interrogation by a defendant in police custody will be admissible at trial only if the prosecution can show that the defendant was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning and of the right against self-incrimination prior to questioning by police, and that the defendant not only understood these rights, but voluntarily waived them.

Magtoto vs Manguera Facts: Extrajudicial confessions were taken prior to the grant of the constitution of custodial rights of the accused. The courts did not grant this rights to the accused on grounds that such rights do not retroact. Held: The rights (custodial) granted have no retroactive effect. Hence, even though the statements are taken without counsel it is still admissible as no law limits such.
People vs Mahinay

Miranda vs arizona Magtoto vs manguera People vs mahinay People vs taylaran People vs marcos People vs rapeza People vs judge ayson People vs marra People maqueda People vs bliteros Gamboa vs judge cruz People vs loveria People vs hatton People vs frago People vs gamboa People vs linsangan Fajardo vs Garcia Carredo vs people Lopez jr vs ombudsman Us vs navarro Us vs tan teng Villaflor vs summers Us vs ong sui hong Beltran vs Samson Bermudez vs Castillo Chavez vs ca Cabal vs kapunan People vs estoista People vs munowz People vs echegaray People vs purazo Lozano vs martinez People v ylagan People vs balisacan People vs espinosa Bulaong vs people Bustamante vs maceren People vs obsania Rivera vs people People vs sandiganbayan and velasco

Condrad vs people People vs ca People vs relova Melo vs people People vs buling Lacson vs executive secretary People vs ferrer People vs sandiganbayan Co vs ca