Miranda v.

Arizona, (1966)
Miranda v. Arizona is an important Supreme Court case that ruling that a defendant's
statements to authorities are unacceptable in court unless the defendant has been informed of
the right of an attorney to be present upon questioning and understanding that whatever they
say will be against them In addition, for a statement to be accepted, individuals must
understand their rights and waive them voluntarily.

In the case of Miranda v. Arizona, the decision by the Supreme Court dealt with four cases
involving parental interrogation, in each case the defendant was interrogated by police,
criminal, and prosecution attorneys in a room where he was isolated from the outside world.
During this case, the defendant never received a full and effective warning of his rights early
in the interrogation process. In all cases, interrogation led to oral hospitalization, three of
which signed affidavits recognized at trial.

 Miranda v. Arizona: Miranda was arrested at his home and taken to the police station,
where he was interrogated by two police officers for two hours after the complaining
witness was identified, and a signed confession white paper was written. At trial, oral
and written confession was presented to the jury, and Miranda was convicted of
kidnapping and rape and sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison for each case. In the
appeal, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that Miranda's constitutional rights were not
violated in receiving a confession.
 Vignera v. New York: Vignera was arrested by New York police for a dress shop
robbery that occurred three days ago. He was transferred to the headquarters of the
17th detective team, and then to the 66th detective group, verbally admitted to the
robbery, was detained after formally arrested, and transferred to 70 wards for
questioning. In the presence of the hearing reporter who recorded the questions and
answers, the prosecutor of the district presented an oral confession and transcript to
the jury at the trial. The conviction was confirmed without the opinion of the
Appellate Department and the Court of Appeals.
 Westover v. United States: Westover was arrested by local Kansas City police as a
suspect in two Kansas City robberies and taken to a local police station. I also
received a report from the FBI that Westover was charged with a felony in California.
The night of the arrest and the morning after local police, FBI agents continued to
cross-examine at the station. After two and a half hours of cross-examination by the
FBI, Westover signed another confession prepared by one. These statements were
introduced in court to each of the two California robbers of the agent under question
Westover was convicted of a California robbery and sentenced to 15 years in prison
for each count. For the 9th Circuit confirmed by the Court of Appeals.
 California v. Stewart: In the process of investigating a series of purse robbers in
which one of the victims died from an injury inflicted by her perpetrator, Stewart was
ideal for approval of a check stolen in one of the robbers Was recognized as a person.
Stewart was arrested at his home, police arrested Stewart's wife and three other people
who visited him, and Stewart was imprisoned and subjected to nine other
 interrogations in five days. He stole her deceased but stated that he had no intention of
hurting her, and the police at the time released the other four arrested by Stewart
because there was no evidence to associate them with the crime. Stuart was convicted
of robbery and first-degree murder and sentenced to death, and the California
Supreme Court objected, arguing that Stuart should have been advised on his right to
remain silent and his right to counsel.

Issues
Whether "statements obtained by a person subject to a questioning of a custodial police
force" are admissible against him in a criminal case and whether "procedures which secure
the individual's privilege under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution not to be compelled
to incriminate himself” are necessary.

Supreme Court holdings:

The Court ruled that“ there can be no doubt that Fifth Amendment privilege is available
outside criminal proceedings and protects people in all locations where their freedom to act is
reduced in any significant way so that they are forced to accuse themselves. ”In that regard,“
the prosecution may not use statements, whether pretentious or convincing, arising from the
defendant's custodial interrogation unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards
that are effective to secure the privilege against self-discrimination. By custodial questioning,
we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person was taken into
custody or otherwise deprived of their freedom to act in any significant way. ”

The Court further ruled that“ without appropriate measures, the questioning of people in
custody or accused of the crime is inherently compelling pressure that works to undermine
the individual's will to resist and to force him to speak where he would. Otherwise do so
freely. "Therefore, a defendant must be warned" before any questioning that he has the right
to remain silent, that anything he says against him may be used in a court of law, that he has
the right to an attorney, and that it cannot afford an attorney for whom one will be appointed
before any questions if he wishes.

The Supreme Court reversed the Arizona Supreme Court ruling in Miranda, reversed the New
York Court of Appeal ruling in Vignera, reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal's ruling
in Westover, and affirmed the California Supreme Court's ruling in Stewart.

Miranda has tried again in 1967 after his case was dropped, and this time the prosecutor,
instead of pleading guilty, presented additional evidence and called witnesses. Another
witness was Twila Hoffman, the woman Miranda had been living with at the time of the trial;
testified that he had told her about committing the crime. Miranda was convicted in 1967 and
sentenced to serve 20 to 30 years. The Arizona Supreme Court agreed, and the United States
Supreme Court rejected the review. At the second trial, Miranda’s confession was not
introduced into evidence. Miranda was once again convicted and sentenced to 20-30 years
imprisonment.
Argued: February.28, March 1 and 2, 1966

Decided: June 13, 1966

Vote: 5-4

Majority: Written by Chief Justice Warren and joined by Justices Black, Douglas, Brennan,
and Fortas.

The dissenting opinion was written by Justice Harlan and joined by Justices Stewart and
White.

The dissenting in part opinion was written by Justice Clark.

People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson, (1995)
In the case of The People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson which was a
criminal trial in the Los Angeles County High Court. Former National Football League
(NFL) player, broadcaster, and actor O.J.Simpson has been tried. Acquitted on June 12, 1994,
for two murders of ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman, Brown and
Gold at 12:10 am on June 13, 1994. It was discovered that the man was stabbed. Simpson
died outside her condo in the Brentwood district of Los Angeles after police found bloody
gloves behind his house and were formally charged with murder on June 17. (Previously
released after a thorough cross-examination by police detectives), he was subject to slow
tracking on a white 1993 Ford Bronco SUV owned and driven by his friend Al Cowlings. TV
stations interrupted the 1994 NBA Finals to broadcast the incident. The following was
watched live by an estimated 95 million people. Pursuit, arrest, and trial were one of the most
widely publicized events in American history. The trial lasted 11 months from the jury's oath
in November. September 1994. A public statement was made on January 24, 1995, and the
judgment was issued on October 3, 1995, when Simpson was acquitted of two murders.
According to USA Today, the case has been described as the "most open" criminal trial in
history.

Simpson was initially led by Robert Shapiro and then represented by a famous defensive
team, also known as "Dream Team", directed by Johnnie Cochran. F. Lee Bailey, Alan
Dershowitz, Robert Kardashian, Shawn Holley, Carl E. Douglas, and Gerald Uelmen were
included, while Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld were two additional lawyers specializing in
DNA evidence.

Deputy District Attorneys Marcia Clark, William Hodgman, and later Christopher Darden
thought there was a strong lawsuit against Simpson, but Cochran was able to convince the
jury that there were reasonable doubts about the validity of a relatively new form of state
DNA evidence in the trial at that time. Reasonable suspicion theory contained evidence
alleging that blood samples were mishandled by laboratory scientists and technicians, and
suspicious circumstances were surrounding other court exhibits. Cochran and the defense
team also alleged other LAPD offenses related to organized racism and incompetence,
especially detective Mark Fuhrman's actions and comments.

The State observed the same evidence presented at trial but a split along racial lines emerged
in observers' opinion of the ruling, which the media call is the "race gap". According to a
survey of residents of Los Angeles County, most African Americans felt that the "innocent"
verdict provided justice, but the majority of whites and Latinos felt it was a racially motivated
jury by a mainly African-American jury. Voting shows that the gap has narrowed since the
case, with over half of black polled respondents in 2015 stating they believe Simpson is
guilty.

After the trial, Brown and Goldman's family sued Simpson. On February 4, 1997, a jury ruled
unanimously by Simpson on both deaths. The family was awarded a total of $ 33 in
compensatory and punitive damages. 5 million ($ 53.4 million in 2019 dollars), but they
received only a small portion of that amount. In 2000, Simpson moved from California to
Florida, one of the few places where personal belongings such as homes and pensions could
be taken to pay off debts that had occurred in other states.

Case background:

Orenthal James Simpson's trial became one of the most public and complex murder trials in
American history, if not world history. The trial was set for a real-life courtroom drama that
came to be known as 'The Trial of the Century'. I can still remember in the year of the
Simpson that the American people focused on the big story. New could argue that the story
was not of epic dimensions. Indeed, no other single news event in American history could
match the scope and intensity of coverage of the murder case in Los Angeles. I found that
Simpson's story had taken the lives of Americans from June 1994 until October 1995. It
swept all other news and almost every other public discussion in its path. This was an event,
one so-called critic noted, which had 'hijacked' American culture. The media was more than
just storytellers. They became story-makers. They first aired that Simpson's story is like a
celebrity story and the fall of a 'great man'. Then they continued to reinvent the story as a
story of domestic violence, wealth, status, and, finally, race. When such stories were tied to
the real social fabric of American life was largely irrelevant. The media insisted that
Simpson's story contained a lasting narrative about the human condition and, by the sheer
pervasive nature of their stories, we bought into it mainly. Moreover, the trial lasted nine
months, took 126 witnesses, and cost an estimated $ 9 million to Los Angeles County.
Official court transcripts of the trial, totaling 50,000 pages, or 6.2 million words, of trial talk,
form the basis of this analysis of the trial language. The facts of the case: Late at night on
June 13, 1994, a man found a blood-stained dog in an agitated state on the drive of Bundy,
West Los Angeles, and an affluent suburb of the city. The dog led the man to 875 De Bundy,
which was once the marital home of former American footballer Simpson and Nicole Brown
Simpson, and is now occupied by Nicole and their two young children The bodies of two
Caucasian adults, one male, one female, on the walkway to the house. The woman was. the
victim was Simpson's ex-wife, Nicole, 35, who was murdered on her return home from lunch;
the male, Ronald Goldman, 25, was a waitress at the restaurant where Nicole had spent the
night. Both victims had been multiply stabbed in a brutal attack and left for dead outside the
condominium on the west side, while Simpson's two young children were sleeping upstairs. It
was alleged that Simpson committed double manslaughter. He was therefore formally
charged with two counts of first-degree murder, a capital offense under California law, on the
night of June 17, 1994.

On June 13, 1994, Brown and Goldman were found murdered outside Nicole's Bundy Drive
condo in Brentwood, Los Angeles, and both victims died about two hours before police
arrived. The murder took place between 10:15 and 11 PM, and Nicole's Akita dog with
blood-stained paws led their neighbors to the body. Steven Schwab testified that while
walking the dog in the area near Brown's house around 11:30 pm, he noticed that Brown's
Akita had blood stains but was not injured. Schwab said he gave it to him. The dog came to a
neighbor friend, who took the dog for a walk at about midnight and testified that it had pulled
the leash and led him to Brown's house. There, he discovered Brown's corpse and flagged
down a passing patrol car.

Brown was found face-down and barefoot at the bottom of the stairs leading to her front door,
which was left open. , there was no sign of enforcement or any evidence that anyone entered
the facility. There was a lot of blood in the scene, but Brown's soles were clean, and
investigators concluded that she was the first to be killed and she was the intended target. She
had been stabbed several times in her head and neck, but she had few protective wounds on
her hands, which suggested a brief battle for investigators. The last incision was deep into her
neck, fracturing her carotid artery. A large bruise in the middle of her upper back so
investigators concluded that after the attacker killed Goldman, he returned to Brown's body,
put his foot on her back (causing the bruise), pulled her head back by the hair, and splitting
her neck, her larynx could be seen through a crevice wound in her neck, and a vertebral C3
was incised; her head barely remained attached to the body.

Goldman was lying close to trees and fences and stabbed his body and neck several times,
but, like Brown, had relatively few defensive wounds, which meant a short struggle for
investigators. Forensic evidence from the Los Angeles County coroner alleged that Goldman
had been repeatedly assaulted and stabbed in the neck and chest with one hand while the
assailant restrained him with an arm chokehold. Goldman only had the striker's blue knit cap
and left-wing. Glove - and oversized Aris Isotoner lightweight leather glove and an envelope
containing the glasses he was returning. Bloody shoes leaving the scene through the back
door were left by the attacker. To the left of the other steps were drops of blood from the
attacker, who appeared to be bleeding from their left hand. Measuring the distance between
the stairs showed the assailant walking away instead of running.

Simpson wanted an expedited trial, and lawyers and prosecutors worked 24 hours a day for
months to prepare the case; the trial began on January 24, 1995, seven months after the
murder, and aired on closed-circuit TV cameras throughout the court. Judge Lance Ito
presided over the trial at the C. Foltz Criminal Courts Building.

Santa Monica had the crime in its jurisdiction but; the Los Angeles High Court later decided
to hold the trial in Downtown Los Angeles instead of Santa Monica due to safety issues at the
Santa Monica Courthouse. The decision may affect the outcome of the trial as it results in a
group of juries with less education, lower-income, and more African-Americans. Richard
Gabriel, Simpson's jury consultant, wrote that higher-income, more educated jurors were
more likely to accept the validity of DNA evidence and claims that domestic violence was a
prelude to murder. Minorities are far better at accepting police claims of racist fraud.

DNA Evidence and Blood Traces:

 Prosecutors submitted 108 exhibits, including 61 drops of blood, Simpson, and

murder. DNA evidence suspected of linking because there were no witnesses for the
crime, prosecutors relied on DNA as the only physical evidence linking Simpson and
the crime. The amount of DNA evidence, in this case, is unique and prosecutors
believe that they can reproduce the way the crime was committed with enough
 precision to match the witness's account. Marcia Clark said in her opening statement
that there was "a trace of blood from the Bandy crime scene through Simpson's Ford
Bronco to Rockingham's bedroom."

 Simpson's DNA was found in a drop of blood next to a bloody footprint near a victim
of a crime scene in Bandy. The probability of error was 1-in-9.7 billion.
 Simpson's DNA was found on a blood trail leading away from the victim, toward and
at the back gate in Bundy. The probability of error was 1-in-200.
 Simpson, Ron Goldman, and Nicole Brown DNA were found in the blood outside the
door and inside Simpson's Bronco. The probability of error was 1-in-21 billion.
 Simpson's DNA was found in a drop of blood that continued from where his Bronco
was parked at the front door of Simpson's Rockingham house.
 Simpson, Brown, and Goldman DNA in bloody gloves were found behind homes.
 Simpson and Nicole Brown's DNA was found in blood on a pair of socks in
Simpson's bedroom. The chance of error is 1-in-6.8 billion.

Hair and fiber evidence:

LAPD Offender and hair fiber expert Susan Brockbank testified on June 27, 1995, and FBI
Special Agent and fiber expert Doug Deedrick on June 29, 1995, testified to the following
findings:

 The fibers on the glove found at Simpson's home corresponds microscopically to the
one found at the crime scene, proving that they are each other's friend.
 Both victims, two gloves, and a blue knit hat worn by the murderer had hair matching
Simpson. The fur of the blue knitted hat worn by the killer is studded in the seams and
appears to have been worn repeatedly.
 Dark blue cotton fabric was found on both victims. The dance recital video that
Simpson attended that night shows him wearing a similar coloured shirt. Kato Kaelin
testified that Simpson was still wearing that shirt when they got home from
McDonald's but not anymore when he answered the door for the limousine driver.
The police searched his home but the shirt was never found.
 Hair accompanied by Goldman was found in Brown and strands of clothing
accompanied by Brown were found in Goldman. In support of the prosecutor's claim
that the killer grabbed Brown by the hair and cut her throat.
 Fibers which were used only in the 1993-1994 model year Ford Bronco, the same car
Simpson owns were found in victims, a knit cap and two gloves.
 The gloves that were found in Simpson's home owned by the killer included hair and
clothing fibers matching Simpson, Brown, and Goldman, as well as Akita dog fibers
from 1993-1994 Ford Bronco and Brown.

Shoe Print Analysis:

On June 19, 1995, FBI shoe print expert William J. Bodziak found bloody inside the crime
scene and Simpson's Bronco. The print of the shoes is a rare and expensive Italian shoe of
Bruno Magri. He determined that it was a size 12 shoes, the same size that Simpson was
wearing, and was only sold at Bloomingdale's. Only 29 pairs were sold in the United States,
one of which was sold in the same store. Bodziak also testified that there was only one
attacker, as they were all made of the same shoes, despite the two sets of footprints on the
crime scene. During a mutual investigation, Bailey suggested that the murderer was
deliberately wearing shoes. With the wrong size, Bodziak dismissed it as "ridiculous."

Simpson denied ever owning those shoes and has only circumstantial evidence.
Bloomingdale's employee Samuel Poser testified that he remembered showing Simpson those
shoes, but there was no store record that he bought them.

Even though Prosecutors couldn't prove that Simpson owned the pair of shoes, but Bodziak
testified that similar bloody shoe prints were left on the floor inside Simpson's Bronco.
Scheck suggested that Fuhrman broke into the Bronco and left the footprint there; he
produced a picture of Fuhrman walking through a pool of blood. Bodziak admitted he could
not confirm that the shoeprint in the car was coming from a Bruno Magli shoe, but rejected
Scheck's request because there was no shoe print at the crime scene committed by Fuhrman's
shoes, so it is unlikely he could make a bloody shoe in the Bronco.

Compromised and contaminated:

BarryScheck and Peter Neufeld argued that the results of the DNA test were unreliable
because police were "sloppy" in collecting and storing DNA from crime scenes. Fung and
Mazzola admitted that they made some mistakes while collecting evidence. This does not
mean that gloves are always changed between handling evidence items, packing and storage
of evidence items using plastic bags instead of recommended paper bags, and police that have
not been refrigerated for up to 7 hours after collection. They argued that this would allow the
bacteria to degrade all DNA of the "real killer(s)" and thus render them susceptible to cross-
contamination in crime laboratories LAPD.

The prosecution denied that the mistakes made by Fung and Mazzola changed the validity of
the results. They noted that all samples of evidence were testable, and most of the DNA tests
were conducted at two consulting laboratories rather than the LAPD crime labs where the
contamination was alleged to have occurred. As all sample laboratory samples found were
tested, while Scheck and Neufeld's theory predicted that it should not be compatible after
being "100 graded", they claim that all DNA was lost due to bacterial damage was unreliable.
Prosecutors also denied that contamination occurred due to a mixture of 'real killer' DNA and
Simpson's DNA at the LAPD Crime Lab, but the results showed that only Simpson's DNA
was present. The prosecutor also noted that the defendant refused to challenge any of these
findings by examining the evidence on its own. Marcia Clark called Scheck and Neufeld's
claims "a smokescreen"

The contamination claim has been brought up by microbiologist Dr. John Gerdes. He testified
on August 2, 1995, that the same Forensic PCR DNA was unreliable and "LAPD crime lab
has a serious pollution problem. It does not end with the impression that it does not go away.
"Gerdes testifies that due to the LAPD contamination history, he would not consider any
matching DNA PCR results, in this case, to be reliable since the tests were done by the
LAPD; also stated that the consulting lab's DNA PCR match was unreliable, as the evidence
they examined had been "through LAPD" for packaging and shipping. Gerdes believed that
only three of the DNA matches were valid. It was the same three that police allegedly planted
defenses.

During cross-examination, Dr. Gerdes acknowledged that there was no evidence that the
contamination had taken place and that he testified "it could not have happened". He
acknowledged that the victims' blood was in Bronco. He also acknowledged that nothing had
happened during the "packing and shipping" process that could affect the performance of the
results at the two consulting labs. The prosecutor pointed out that Gerdes was not an honest
witness: he had no intelligence and only testified to criminal suspects in the past and always
claimed that the DNA evidence they were facing was unreliable due to corruption. Clark also
pointed out that it was not a coincidence that the three initial pieces of evidence that the best
performers were the same three that the planters planted and the other 58 were false and 47
substrate controls, which were used to determine whether pollution was red, all of which
were false. Defense Forensic DNA expert Dr. Henry Lee testified on August 24, 1995,
admitting that Gerdes's allegations were "very unlikely." Barry Scheck's eight-day review of
Dennis Fung has been recommended to the media. However, Howard Coleman, president of
the Seattle-based forensic DNA laboratory GeneLex, criticized Scheck's investigation as
"smoke and mirrors" and said that "everything we find in the lab is polluted to some degree.
It is not the definitive result that pollution or deterioration leads you. It does not lead you to
false positives. "

A poster explaining the rational suspicion theory proposed by the defense. They condemned
prison nurse Thano Peratis, criminal Dennis Fung, Andrea Mazzola, Colin Yamauchi,
detective Philip Vannatter, and Mark Fuhrman. I did. Participated in a plot to rescue
Simpson. In the final debate, Cochran called Fuhrman and Vannatter "twins of deception"
and told the jury to remember Vannatter as "the man who carried blood" and Fuhrman. "The
man who found the gloves"

Verdict:

The verdict of "People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson" is "Innocent for
violating section 187(a) of the Criminal Code for a felony against human Nicole Brown
Simpson. Not guilty for violating the Criminal Code" Section 187(a), Felony against human
Ronald Lyle Goldman. “Essentially, this means that O.J. Simpson was acquitted of the
murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman There was more than enough
evidence on O.J.Simpson including the police pursuing the murder, The physical abuse
Simpson had inflicted on Nicole Brown Simpson, and the evidence found in O.J. Simpson’s
residence. He was shown to have his DNA on him (this includes the bloody feather glove. At
a later date, O.J. Simpson published a book called "If I Did It". An excerpt from the book
says, "If I did it, I would have had good gloves that day. It shrank when I left it in the
courtyard, but I brought the same. I needed it because I was lucky enough to stab my wife's
slut. "
The only testimony considered by the jury was the limousine driver Park's testimony. At
10:07 am on Tuesday, October 3, 1995, Simpson was acquitted of both murders. postpone
notification. After the verdict was read, the 9th juror, Lionel Cryer, 44, raised Simpson's fist
of black power. The New York Times reported that Cryer was a former member of the
revolutionary nationalist Black Panther Party, which prosecutors "left on the panel beyond
explanation."

Decided: October 3, 1995;

Verdict: Not Guilty in violation of Penal Code Section 187(a), a felony upon Nicole Brown
Simpson, a human being. Not Guilty in violation of Penal Code Section 187(a), a felony upon
Ronald Lyle Goldman, a human being.

Case history

Subsequent action(s): Civil lawsuit filed by the Brown and Goldman families; Simpson was
found responsible by a preponderance of the evidence for both deaths on February 4, 1997.

Court membership

Judge(s) sitting: Kathleen Kennedy-Powell (Preliminary Hearing); Lance Ito (Trial)