POPULARITY
2 episodes with Ernesto Miranda
2 episodes with Ernesto Miranda
2 episodes with Ernesto Miranda
2 episodes with Ernesto Miranda
2 episodes with Ernesto Miranda
2 episodes with Ernesto Miranda
Back on this day in 1966 the Miranda Rights were established. It was a result of Arizona's Ernesto Miranda, that every person arrested now has to be read their rights.
This Day in Legal History: Miranda v. ArizonaOn June 13, 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Miranda v. Arizona, fundamentally reshaping American criminal procedure. The case centered on Ernesto Miranda, who had confessed to kidnapping and rape during a police interrogation without being informed of his constitutional rights. In a narrow 5–4 ruling, the Court held that the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel require law enforcement officers to inform suspects of their rights before custodial interrogation begins.The decision mandated that suspects be told they have the right to remain silent, that anything they say can be used against them in court, and that they have the right to an attorney—either retained or appointed. These now-standard warnings, known as "Miranda rights," became a required part of police procedure across the United States.Chief Justice Earl Warren, writing for the majority, emphasized that custodial interrogation is inherently coercive and that procedural safeguards were necessary to preserve the individual's privilege against self-incrimination. The dissenters, led by Justice Harlan, argued the decision imposed an impractical burden on law enforcement and that traditional voluntariness tests were sufficient.Miranda sparked immediate controversy, with critics warning it would hamper police efforts and allow guilty individuals to go free. Nonetheless, it has endured as a cornerstone of American constitutional law, embodying the principle that the government must respect individual rights even in the pursuit of justice. Over the years, the ruling has been refined but not overturned, and Miranda warnings are now deeply embedded in both law enforcement training and popular culture.Tesla has filed a trade secret lawsuit in California federal court against former engineer Jay Li and his startup, Proception, alleging that Li stole confidential information to accelerate the development of robotic hands. According to the complaint, Li worked on Tesla's Optimus humanoid robot project from 2022 to 2024 and allegedly downloaded sensitive files related to robotic hand movements before departing the company. Tesla claims Li used this proprietary data to give Proception an unfair edge, enabling the startup to make rapid technological gains that had taken Tesla years and significant investment to achieve.The suit points out that Proception was founded just six days after Li left Tesla and began showcasing its robotic hands five months later—devices Tesla says bear a “striking similarity” to its own designs. Tesla is seeking monetary damages and a court order to prevent further use of its alleged trade secrets. Legal representation for Tesla includes attorneys from Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, while counsel for Proception and Li has not yet been disclosed.Tesla lawsuit says former engineer stole secrets for robotics startup | ReutersA federal district court and a federal appeals court issued conflicting rulings over President Donald Trump's deployment of National Guard troops in Los Angeles amid protests over aggressive immigration enforcement.U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled earlier in the day that Trump's order to deploy the Guard was unlawful. He found that the protests did not meet the legal threshold of a “rebellion,” which would be necessary for the president to override state control of the Guard under the Insurrection Act or related powers. Breyer concluded the deployment inflamed tensions and stripped California of the ability to use its own Guard for other state needs. His 36-page opinion ordered that control of the National Guard be returned to California Governor Gavin Newsom.However, about two and a half hours later, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted an administrative stay, temporarily pausing Breyer's ruling and allowing Trump to retain command of the Guard for now. The three-judge panel—two appointed by Trump and one by President Biden—stressed that their order was not a final decision and set a hearing for the following Tuesday to evaluate the full merits of the lower court's decision.Meanwhile, a battalion of 700 U.S. Marines was scheduled to arrive to support the Guard, further escalating the federal presence. Critics, including L.A. Mayor Karen Bass and Senator Alex Padilla—who was forcibly removed from a press event—argued that the military response was excessive and politically motivated. Supporters of the deployment, including Trump and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, defended it as necessary to restore order. A Reuters/Ipsos poll showed public opinion split, with 48% supporting military use to quell violent protests and 41% opposed.Appeals court allows Trump to keep National Guard in L.A. with Marines on the way | ReutersIn a pattern that surprises few, the conservative-dominated U.S. Supreme Court has granted President Donald Trump a series of victories through its emergency—or "shadow"—docket, continuing a trend of fast-tracking his policy goals without full hearings. Since returning to office in January, Trump's administration has filed 19 emergency applications to the Court, with decisions in 13 cases so far. Of those, nine rulings went fully in Trump's favor, one partially, and only two against him. These rapid interventions have enabled Trump to enforce controversial policies—including ending humanitarian legal status for migrants, banning transgender military service, and initiating sweeping federal layoffs—despite lower court injunctions.District court challenges to these actions often cite constitutional overreach or procedural shortcuts, but the Supreme Court has repeatedly overruled or paused these lower court decisions with minimal explanation. The emergency docket, once used sparingly, has become a regular tool for the Trump administration, matching the total number of applications filed during Biden's entire presidency in under five months. Critics argue that the Court's increasing reliance on this docket lacks transparency, with rulings frequently unsigned and unexplained. Liberal justices have voiced strong objections, warning that rushed decisions with limited briefing risk significant legal error.The Court's 6-3 conservative majority, including three Trump appointees, has given the president a judicial green light to implement divisive policies while litigation plays out. Some legal scholars argue these outcomes reflect strategic case selection rather than simple ideological bias. Still, in light of the Court's current composition and its repeated willingness to empower executive action, the results are hardly shocking.Trump finds victories at the Supreme Court in rush of emergency cases | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Tomaso Albinoni.This week's closing theme is Sinfonia in G minor, T.Si 7 by Tomaso Albinoni, a composer whose elegant, expressive works have often been overshadowed by his more famous contemporaries. Born on June 14, 1671, in Venice, Albinoni was one of the early Baroque era's leading figures in instrumental music and opera. Though he trained for a career in commerce, he chose instead to live independently as a composer, unusual for his time. He wrote extensively for the violin and oboe, and was among the first to treat the oboe as a serious solo instrument in concert music.Albinoni's style is marked by a graceful clarity and balanced formal structure, qualities well represented in this week's featured piece. The Sinfonia in G minor, T.Si 7 is a compact, three-movement work likely composed for a theatrical performance or ceremonial function. It opens with a dramatic Grave, setting a solemn tone that gives way to a lively Allegro and a brief yet expressive final movement.The G minor tonality gives the piece an emotional intensity, without tipping into melodrama—typical of Albinoni's refined dramatic sensibility. While his best-known composition today may be the Adagio in G minor—ironically, a piece reconstructed long after his death—Albinoni's authentic works, like this sinfonia, display a deft hand at combining lyricism with architectural clarity.His music enjoyed wide dissemination in his lifetime and was admired by J.S. Bach, who used Albinoni's bass lines as models for his own compositions. As we close out this week, Albinoni's Sinfonia in G minor offers a reminder of the beauty in restraint and the enduring resonance of Baroque form.Without further ado, Tomaso Albinoni's Sinfonia in G minor, T.Si 7. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
This week, we're in Arizona discussing a family annihilator. Then, we'll talk about the case that established the Miranda Rights. Buckle up and join us on this dark and twisted ride through the Grand Canyon State. You may now join us on Patreon or buy us a Cocktail. Be sure to subscribe on Apple and leave a review, or, email us at unitedstatesofmurder@gmail.com Follow us on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter! Sources: Arizona News, Arizona Department of Child Safety, CBS News, Miranda v. Arizona, Miranda Warning, Justia - Miranda Rights, Police 1, Thirteen Music by Pixabay --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/unitedstatesofmurder/support
https://www.michelledanner.comwww.allinfilms.com Instagram michelledannerla There aren't many people who can point to a career full of success as a performer, teacher, storyteller, entrepreneur, and expert. But Michelle Danner can. The legendary acting teacher and founder of the Creative Center for the Arts and the Los Angeles Acting Conservatory, Danner is also now well-established as a successful film director. Her last film,“Miranda's Victim,” stars Abigail Breslin, Luke Wilson, Ryan Phillippe, Emily VanCamp, Mireille Enos, Enrique Murciano, Brent Sexton, Josh Bowman, Sebastian Quinn, Taryn Manning, Nolan Gould, Dan Lauria, Kyle MacLachlan, Andy Garcia and Donald Sutherland. The film tells the true story of Trish Weir (Breslin) who was kidnapped and brutally raped by Ernesto Miranda. The subsequent trials went all the way to the Supreme Court and led to creation of the Miranda Rights. Up next for Danner is the comedy romance film “The Italians,” which stars Matthew Daddario (Shadowhunters), Rob Estes (Silk Stalkings), Perrey Reeves (Entourage), David DeLuise (Wizards of Waverly Place), Olivia Luccardi (It Follows), Lainie Kazan (My Big Fat Greek Wedding), and Abigail Breslin (Zombieland, Little Miss Sunshine). The film is currently playing at festivals around the country. A dedicated mom of two (one is an aspiring filmmaker), Danner still has her “day job” – overseeing the faculty of the Los Angeles Acting Conservatory, and conducting her weekly acting class. Michelle has worked privately with Christian Slater, Salma Hayek, Gerard Butler, Seth MacFarlane, Penelope Cruz, Chris Rock, Gabrielle Union, Zooey Deschanel, Henry Cavill, Isla Fisher and James Franco. A longtime student of legendary acting teachers like Stella Adler and Uta Hagen, Danner's eclectic approach (which she calls “The Golden Box”) allows actors the freedom to employ a wide variety of techniques. Raised in a show business family and with a deep appreciation for all of the performing arts, Danner also continues to run the boutique “Cinema at the Edge” film festival and is currently preparing to direct a new one-person play, Bonnie Culver's “Norris,” starring Anne Archer, based on the memoirs of the widow of writer Norman Mailer. Simply put, there's almost no one in the business who knows as much about acting and success as Michelle Danner – and her continued success in multiple creative fields makes her one of the most successful women working in the industry today. Meosha Bean Films on Plex https://watch.plex.tv/person/meosha-bean Shout out ATL link -https://shoutoutatlanta.com/meet-meos... Listen To Creator to Creators Apple Podcast https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast... Watch Meosha films on Tubi -- https://tubitv.com/person/b00c45/meos... Rate comment subscribe hit notification bell for all new videosBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/creator-to-creators-with-meosha-bean--4460322/support.
En el episodio de esta semana, Sara le cuenta a Mariana sobre Ernesto Miranda, y Mariana le cuenta a Sara sobre Eric Richins. Las imágenes están disponibles en nuestro instagram: @nosalgasdecasapodcast.¿Te gustó el episodio? Invítanos un café: https://ko-fi.com/nosalgasdecasapodcastSupport the Show.
In the Fourteenth Episode of Season 4 of History's Greatest Idiots Lev and Derek rediscover the life and legacy of a criminal that changed American law forever (Ernesto Miranda), and relive the insanity of the worst plane journey ever (The Plane Ride From Hell)! https://www.patreon.com/HistorysGreatestIdiots https://www.instagram.com/historysgreatestidiots Hosts: Lev & Derek https://linktr.ee/ThatEffnGuy Artist: Sarah Chey https://www.fiverr.com/sarahchey Animation: Daniel Wilson https://www.instagram.com/wilson_the_wilson/ Music: Andrew Wilson https://www.instagram.com/andrews_electric_sheep Want to create live streams like this? Check out StreamYard: https://streamyard.com/pal/d/4675161203933184 --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/historysgreatestidiots/support
In the Fourteenth Episode of Season 4 of History's Greatest Idiots Lev and Derek rediscover the life and legacy of a criminal that changed American law forever (Ernesto Miranda), and relive the insanity of the worst plane journey ever (The Plane Ride From Hell)! https://www.patreon.com/HistorysGreatestIdiots https://www.instagram.com/historysgreatestidiots Hosts: Lev & Derek https://linktr.ee/ThatEffnGuy Artist: Sarah Chey https://www.fiverr.com/sarahchey Animation: Daniel Wilson https://www.instagram.com/wilson_the_wilson/ Music: Andrew Wilson https://www.instagram.com/andrews_electric_sheep Want to create live streams like this? Check out StreamYard: https://streamyard.com/pal/d/4675161203933184 --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/historysgreatestidiots/support
This Day in Legal History: Miranda RightsOn June 13, 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling in Miranda v. Arizona, fundamentally transforming the criminal justice system. The Court held that suspects must be informed of their rights prior to police interrogation, a decision aimed at protecting the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. This ruling introduced what is now known as "Miranda rights," which include the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, and the warning that anything said can be used in court. The case arose from Ernesto Miranda's conviction based on a confession obtained without these warnings, which the Court deemed unconstitutional. Chief Justice Earl Warren emphasized the necessity of procedural safeguards to ensure suspects' awareness of their rights. This decision has since become a cornerstone of American legal procedure, significantly influencing law enforcement practices nationwide. The Miranda warning aims to prevent coercion and ensure fair treatment, highlighting the importance of individual rights within the justice system.Today, Tesla shareholders are voting to approve Elon Musk's $56 billion pay package and relocate the company's legal home to Texas. Musk announced on social media that the pay package and relocation were passing by wide margins. Approval of this substantial pay deal could alleviate investor concerns about Musk's future at Tesla and support the company's efforts to reverse a court decision that voided the pay package. However, the decision may still face challenges in the Delaware court, where a judge previously ruled that Tesla's board was too influenced by Musk. Despite the shareholder vote, legal experts, such as UC Berkeley's Adam Badawi, are uncertain if the court will uphold it.Tesla's stock rose significantly in premarket trading following the announcement. The final voting results will be disclosed at a shareholder meeting in Texas. Major proxy firms had advised against the pay package, but a mix of institutional and retail investor votes helped secure its passage. Shareholders also voted on relocating Tesla's legal headquarters and re-electing board members Kimbal Musk and James Murdoch. This vote is seen as a test of confidence in Musk's leadership amid Tesla's recent challenges, including a significant drop in stock value since 2021 and concerns about Musk's commitments across his multiple ventures.Musk says Tesla shareholders voting yes for his $56 billion pay package | ReutersDisney and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis have resolved their dispute with a deal allowing Disney to develop the Walt Disney World Resort near Orlando for the next 15 years. The feud began in 2022 when former Disney CEO Bob Chapek criticized a state law limiting discussions of sexuality and gender issues in schools, known as the "Don't Say Gay" law. The new agreement, made with the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District, commits Disney to spending at least $8 billion over a decade and $17 billion over 10 to 20 years on the resort. This investment will include expanding affordable housing, ensuring 50% of the spending benefits Florida businesses, and potentially building a fifth theme park, retail and office spaces, and 14,000 additional hotel rooms. Disney President Jeff Vahle highlighted that the agreement facilitates significant investments in the resort. This deal follows a settlement in March to end a lawsuit over control of the special district encompassing Walt Disney World.Disney, Florida's DeSantis end spat with deal on 15-year expansion plan | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court is set to rule on the constitutionality of the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) use of in-house judges for adjudicating enforcement actions. This decision could have significant consequences for other federal agencies that employ similar systems. The SEC employs administrative law judges who handle cases referred by the agency's commissioners. These judges conduct hearings, issue subpoenas, and make initial decisions on sanctions, which are then reviewed by the commissioners. This process is generally faster and more specialized than federal court proceedings.The challenge originates from George Jarkesy, a hedge fund manager fined by the SEC in 2013 for securities fraud. Jarkesy contested the SEC's in-house system, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2022 that these proceedings violate the Seventh Amendment's right to a jury trial. This ruling has prompted the Supreme Court to review the case.During a November hearing, the Supreme Court's conservative justices expressed doubts about the legality of the SEC's in-house system, particularly its exclusion of jury trials for fraud charges. Chief Justice John Roberts questioned the constitutionality of depriving individuals of a jury trial based on the government's decision.If the Supreme Court decides to limit or abolish the SEC's in-house courts, it could affect not only the SEC but also other federal agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency, the Labor Department, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. These agencies might face slower enforcement actions, increased resource demands, and challenges in targeting misconduct without the use of in-house tribunals.Explainer: What is the US SEC's in-house court under Supreme Court review? | ReutersFirst, some very brief background. Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine that shields government officials, including law enforcement, from liability for civil damages unless they violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. It is intended to protect officials from lawsuits over actions taken in their official capacity, provided their conduct does not violate clearly established laws.Recently, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals told the Ohio Attorney General (AG) to stop blocking a ballot initiative aimed at ending qualified immunity. This initiative arose from widespread public dissatisfaction with various forms of immunity that often protect government employees from lawsuits. Ohio residents have been trying to place a measure on the ballot to eliminate these immunities. However, the Ohio AG, David Yost, has repeatedly refused to certify the proposed amendment, preventing it from advancing.We'll have to see what Ohio decides, but this development could pave the way for similar initiatives in other states. If Ohio successfully places the measure on the ballot and it gains voter approval, it may inspire activists and lawmakers in other jurisdictions to pursue comparable reforms. The outcome in Ohio could set a precedent and generate momentum for a broader movement to reassess and potentially limit qualified immunity across the United States.Sixth Circuit Tells Ohio AG To Stop Blocking Ballot Initiative Calling For End Of Qualified Immunity | Techdirt This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
Director Michelle Danner discusses her new film, Miranda's Victim, with fellow Director Sarah Pirozek in a Q&A at the DGA theater in New York. In the conversation, she discusses the intention behind her casting choices, how she aimed to capture a classic era through cinematography and editing, and how she sought to explore her lead character's mindset in tandem to the events of the story. The film tells the story of Patricia Weir, who in 1963, was kidnapped and brutally raped by Ernesto Miranda. Committed to seeing him pay for the crime, her life is destroyed by America's legal system as she triggers a law that transforms the nation. See photos and a summary of this event below: https://dga.org/Events/2023/December2023/MirandasVictim_QnA_1123.aspx
Because of the landmark Supreme Court case Miranda versus Arizona, police must read individuals who are in custody their Miranda Rights…prior to questioning. This US Supreme Court case is studied and analyzed by law students and legal scholars everywhere. However, the one component of this case that seemed to be lost to history is the victim, a young girl who was kidnapped and raped by Ernesto Miranda. The newly released movie Miranda's Victim delves into the underlying rape case and the victim who refused to stay quiet. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
We continue analyzing Teresa Halbach's murder and the behavior of Steven Avery who was convicted in 2007 for her killing along with his nephew Brendan Dassey. They are both currently serving life sentences in Wisconsin. Filmmaker Shawn Rech's new series “Convicting A Murderer” re-examines the case and provides much more information and context than was previously disclosed in Netflix' “Making A Murderer” about this same case. Rech, who's previous work include documentaries about wrongful convictions and over-sentencing, reveals much more evidence of Avery's extensive criminal history which Laura and Jim review.#realcrimeprofile #TrueCrime #podcast #ExpertAnalysis #FBI #NewScotlandYard #CriminalBehavior #BehaviorAnalysis Follow us and continue the conversationOn Instagramhttps://www.instagram.com/realcrimeprofile/?hl=enOn Twitterhttps://twitter.com/realcrimeprofilOn Facebookhttps://www.facebook.com/realcrimeprofile/>>>>>>>>> SUPPORT OUR OTHER SHOWS
“Miranda's Victim” is a new feature film thoughtfully directed by Michelle Danner with a heavy hitting cast starring Abigail Breslin, Mireille Enos, Emily VanCamp, Ryan Phillippe, Luke Wilson, Andy Garcia, Donald Sutherland and Kyle MacLachlan. If you've watched any crime show, chances are you've heard the Miranda warning which starts “You have the right to remain silent…” But do you know where it came from and who “Miranda” was? If you thought Miranda was an innocent victim who was perhaps falsely accused of a crime you'd be mistaken. Lisa sits down with executive producer and writer George Kolber of “Miranda's Victim” to talk about the true story of who the real victim was at the heart of the ground breaking legal challenge. In 1963, 18 year old Trisha Weir was on her way home from her job at a local Phoenix Arizona movie theater when she was abducted off the street, driven out into the desert and raped by Ernesto Miranda, a man who already had a history of crime including stalking and sexual assault. The police were able to zero in on Miranda, bring him into a line up where Trisha identified him and shortly thereafter he wrote a full confession to the crime without the presence of an attorney. Miranda was convicted, but later his verdict was overturned by the Supreme Court who found that his rights as a suspect had been violated. The film tracks Trisha's journey as she tries heal from her trauma and still pursue justice. For help with sexual assault in the US visit https://www.rainn.org/ In Australia, visit https://fullstop.org.au/ Watch the trailer for Miranda's Victim here https://youtu.be/CJq0Frb-f-Y?si=ohPkglEumDvzEe2A
(Image courtesy of Vertical)We've all heard of our Miranda Rights. Some of us know that they originated as the result of a 1966 Supreme Court decision in the Miranda v. Arizona case. But few of us know the details of Miranda's crime. The film Miranda's Victim will finally right that wrong and tell the story of the true hero: Trish Weir. Writer and producer of the film George Kolber, joins Allison in an interview about the film, its importance, and some easter eggs in the movie. The film will premier in select theaters as well as Video On Demand today-- October 6th, 2023.Please consider supporting the pod by joining us over on our Patreon page! Are you up-to-date on all our regular content? Get access to monthly mini-episodes as well as one full solved case per month by joining today! Be a part of the C & C Fam by going to https://www.patreon.com/coffeeandcases to register!BlendJet Offer: Use my special link (https://zen.ai/coffeeandcasesblendpromo) to save 12% at blendjet.com. The discount will be applied at checkout!Motley Fool Offer: Save $110* off the full list price of Stock Advisor for your first year, go to fool.com/coffeeandcases and use promo code coffeeandcases and start your investing journey today!*$110 discount off of $199 per year list price.Membership will renew annually at the then current list price.Cure Hydration: Try Cure today and feel the difference for yourself! Use my special link (https://zen.ai/coffeeandcasespod20) for 20% off your order, coupon activated at checkout!Nom Nom: Try Nom Nom today; go to https://trynom.com/coffeeandcases and get 50% off your first order plus free shipping
We've all heard of our Miranda Rights. Some of us know that they originated as the result of a 1966 Supreme Court decision in the Miranda v. Arizona case. But few of us know the details of Miranda's crime. Join Allison as she explores the case, as well as the controversy in that Supreme Court ruling.Please consider supporting the pod by joining us over on our Patreon page! Are you up-to-date on all our regular content? Get access to monthly mini-episodes as well as one full solved case per month by joining today! Be a part of the C & C Fam by going to https://www.patreon.com/coffeeandcases to register!BlendJet Offer: Use my special link (https://zen.ai/coffeeandcasesblendpromo) to save 12% at blendjet.com. The discount will be applied at checkout!Motley Fool Offer: Save $110* off the full list price of Stock Advisor for your first year, go to fool.com/coffeeandcases and use promo code coffeeandcases and start your investing journey today! *$110 discount off of $199 per year list price.Membership will renew annually at the then current list price.Cure Hydration: Try Cure today and feel the difference for yourself! Use my special link (https://zen.ai/coffeeandcasespod20) for 20% off your order, coupon activated at checkout!Nom Nom: Try Nom Nom today; go to https://trynom.com/coffeeandcases and get 50% off your first order plus free shipping
True Crime Tuesday presents: Miranda's Victim with Hollywood Screenwriter/Producer, George Kolber! Miranda's Victim is the dramatic retelling of the infamous "Miranda Rights Law" origin story, in which 18 year old Trish Weir was kidnapped and sexually assaulted. Her assailant, Ernesto Miranda, confesses without legal representation and serves a two year sentence, only to have the verdict later overturned! In the resulting retrial, a determined prosecutor seeks to hold Ernesto accountable for his crimes, despite grueling opposition from Ernesto's defense attorney. The following legal proceeding changes the legal system forever! George Kolber joins TCT to talk about the production of Miranda's Victims, some of the interesting backstories and history of the case, and what things he unfortunately had to leave OUT of the movie! Miranda's Victims opens in select theaters and is available on video on demand on 10/06/23! Check out Miranda's Victim here: https://www.mirandasvictim.com/ PLUS AN ALL-NEW DUMB CRIMES/STUPID CRIMINALS WITH BEER CITY BRUISER! #crime #truecrime #truecrimepodcasts #truecrimetuesday #georgekolber #mirandasvictim #abigailbreslin #ryanphillippe #lukewilson #emilyvancamp #andygarcia #donaldsutherland #michelledanner #ernestomiranda #trishweir #arizona #rape #mirandarights #dumbcrimesstupidcriminals #TimDennis #beercitybruiser #ringofhonorwrestling #floridaman #drugcrimes #foodcrimes #stupidcrimes #funnycrimes #frozenchicken #sexcrimes #publicmasturbation
True Crime Tuesday presents: Miranda's Victim with Hollywood Screenwriter/Producer, George Kolber! Miranda's Victim is the dramatic retelling of the infamous "Miranda Rights Law" origin story, in which 18 year old Trish Weir was kidnapped and sexually assaulted. Her assailant, Ernesto Miranda, confesses without legal representation and serves a two year sentence, only to have the verdict later overturned! In the resulting retrial, a determined prosecutor seeks to hold Ernesto accountable for his crimes, despite grueling opposition from Ernesto's defense attorney. The following legal proceeding changes the legal system forever! George Kolber joins TCT to talk about the production of Miranda's Victims, some of the interesting backstories and history of the case, and what things he unfortunately had to leave OUT of the movie! Miranda's Victims opens in select theaters and is available on video on demand on 10/06/23! Check out Miranda's Victim here: https://www.mirandasvictim.com/ PLUS AN ALL-NEW DUMB CRIMES/STUPID CRIMINALS WITH BEER CITY BRUISER! #crime #truecrime #truecrimepodcasts #truecrimetuesday #georgekolber #mirandasvictim #abigailbreslin #ryanphillippe #lukewilson #emilyvancamp #andygarcia #donaldsutherland #michelledanner #ernestomiranda #trishweir #arizona #rape #mirandarights #dumbcrimesstupidcriminals #TimDennis #beercitybruiser #ringofhonorwrestling #floridaman #drugcrimes #foodcrimes #stupidcrimes #funnycrimes #frozenchicken #sexcrimes #publicmasturbation
This week we are discussing Ernesto Miranda, the namesake behind “Miranda Rights”, and the landmark case that reshaped the American legal procedure to this day. Thank you to our sponsors! If you want to try Beam's best-selling Dream Powder, get up to 40% off for a limited time when you go to shopbeam.com/MOMS and use code MOMS at checkout. If you're looking for the next must listen to podcast, check-out True Crime Feed! Stop wasting money on things you don't use. Cancel your unwanted subscriptions – and manage your money the easy way – by going to RocketMoney.com/moms. Gain peace of mind today with Trust and Will. Get 10% off plus free shipping of your estate plan documents by visiting trustandwill.com/MOMS. Listen here for the story of Jared Bridegan. New merch! Check out Moms and Mysteries Threadless! You can also get new episodes a day early and ad free, plus merch and more at Patreon.com/momsandmysteriespodcast Listen and subscribe to Melissa's other podcast, Criminality!! It's the podcast for those who love reality TV, true crime, and want to hear all the juicy stories where the two genres intersect. Subscribe and listen here: www.pod.link/criminality Check-out Moms and Mysteries to find links to our tiktok, youtube, twitter, instagram and more! Make sure you subscribe and rate our show to help others find us! Sources: N/A, “Miranda Slain”, Associated Press, 1 Feb 1976 NCC Staff, “The Miranda Warning…”, National Constitution Center, 13 June 2017 Dungan, Ron, “Miranda and the right…”, The Republic, 11 June 2016 Miranda v. Arizona, 1966 N/A, “Suspect charged in…”, UPI, 5 Feb 1976 N/A, “Explore the history…”, Lewis and Roca LLP Lawyers, accessed 17 Sept 2023 N/A, “Miranda, Ernest”, Encyclopedia.com, accessed 17 Sept 2023 N/A, “Facts and Case Summary…”, United States Courts, accessed 18 Sept 2023 N/A, “History of Miranda Warning”, MirandaWarning.org, accessed 18 Sept 2023 Lief, Michael S. and Caldwell, Mitchell, “You have the right…” American Heritage Magazine, August/September 2006 Hardy, David C., “What are Miranda rights…”, The Hardly Law Firm, P.A., 26 Aug 2018 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
The famous US police warning to suspects that begins “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law” dates back to a landmark ruling by the US Supreme Court on June 13th, 1966. Known as the Miranda rights, or Miranda warnings, the case of Ernesto Miranda, who was arrested on suspicion of kidnapping and rape, reached the highest court in the land because of his lawyers' contention that he had not been properly made aware of his rights. In this episode, Arion, Rebecca and Olly discuss how a relatively unremarkable (though very serious) case came to have huge nationwide implications; detail the strange way Miranda made money after he got out of prison; and examine the bitter irony of Miranda's own death at the hands of a fellow prison inmate… Further Reading: • ‘Miranda Rights: Your Rights of Silence' (ThoughtCo, 2022): https://www.thoughtco.com/miranda-rights-your-rights-of-silence-3320117 • ‘The Miranda rights are established' (History.com, 2009): https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-miranda-rights-are-established • ‘Do You Know Your Miranda Rights? | Debunker' (NBC, 2017): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXXjUcI2kcc #60s #US #Crime Love the show? Join
On this day, June 13th, in legal history, the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision Miranda v. Arizona. In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court dealt with four cases involving interrogations of suspects in police custody. In each case, the defendants were questioned in a secluded room without being adequately informed of their rights. The interrogations resulted in oral and written confessions, which were used as evidence in the trials.The first case involved Ernesto Miranda, who was arrested at his home and interrogated by police officers for two hours. He confessed in writing to the crimes and was found guilty. The Supreme Court of Arizona initially upheld the conviction, but the Supreme Court later reversed it.In the second case, Vignera v. New York, Vignera was taken to multiple police stations, where he admitted to a robbery during questioning by an assistant district attorney. The confession was presented at trial, and Vignera was convicted. The conviction was upheld without an opinion by the appellate courts.The third case, Westover v. United States, involved Westover's arrest by local police in Kansas City. After local police interrogated him, FBI agents continued the questioning, resulting in separate confessions to two California robberies. These confessions were introduced as evidence, and Westover was convicted. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.In the final case, California v. Stewart, the defendant was interrogated multiple times over five days before confessing to a robbery and murder. The statements were used in the trial, leading to Stewart's conviction and death sentence. However, the Supreme Court of California reversed the decision, stating that Stewart should have been advised of his rights.The main issue addressed by the Supreme Court was whether statements obtained through custodial interrogations should be admissible in court and if safeguards protecting the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination were necessary. The Court held that the privilege applies in all settings where a person's freedom of action is significantly restricted and that procedural safeguards are required.According to the Court, custodial interrogations create coercive pressures that can undermine a person's will to remain silent. As a result, defendants must be informed of their rights, including the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, and the right to have an attorney appointed if they cannot afford one.In its decision, the Supreme Court reversed the judgments of the lower courts in Miranda, Vignera, and Westover, and affirmed the judgment of the Supreme Court of California in Stewart.Facts and Case Summary - Miranda v. Arizona | United States CourtsFormer U.S. President Donald Trump is set to appear in a federal court in Miami to face charges that he violated the Espionage Act by retaining and mishandling classified documents, including top-secret nuclear information and war plans, after leaving office. This is an unprecedented indictment for a former president, with legal experts noting that the U.S. Justice Department has historically treated such cases as extremely serious. The government's challenge will be to demonstrate intent, a crucial element in state-secrets prosecutions. The indictment cites Trump's past statements about the importance of safeguarding classified information and contrasts them with a transcript of a recording where he allegedly acknowledged retaining a classified military plan. The case alleges that Trump unlawfully retained 31 documents with sensitive national security information and more than 300 documents with classified markings. The number and nature of the documents, coupled with allegations of obstruction, strengthen the government's case. Trump's former White House valet and aide, Walt Nauta, is also named as a co-defendant. Trump is facing multiple legal threats as he pursues a second term, including a New York state criminal case over hush money payments. Special Counsel Jack Smith, appointed to lead the federal prosecution, emphasized the importance of enforcing laws protecting national defense information.Trump to face charges in Florida court in classified documents case | ReutersTrump Heads to Court to Start Fighting Espionage Act ChargesJPMorgan Chase & Co. has agreed to pay $290 million to settle a lawsuit related to its alleged involvement with convicted serial offender Jeffrey Epstein's trafficking activities. The settlement resolves a proposed class action filed by an unnamed Epstein victim. While JPMorgan admits no liability, the bank acknowledges the mistake of any association with Epstein and expresses regret. The settlement does not fully resolve JPMorgan's legal issues, as it still faces a lawsuit by the US Virgin Islands and is engaged in litigation against its former private-banking head, Jes Staley. The settlement represents a step toward justice for Epstein survivors, according to their attorney. The case against JPMorgan was allowed to proceed as a class action, representing women who were abused or trafficked by Epstein during his accounts' tenure at the bank. Deutsche Bank, which took over as Epstein's main financial institution after JPMorgan severed ties, previously settled a similar lawsuit for $75 million. The US Virgin Islands continues its legal action against JPMorgan to prevent future involvement in human trafficking.JPMorgan Agrees to Pay $290 Million to Settle Epstein CaseThe Biden administration's Treasury Department and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) have reached an agreement that removes tax regulatory actions from White House review. The memorandum of agreement, effective immediately, replaces a 2018 agreement made under the Trump administration. The new agreement exempts tax regulatory actions from the standard centralized review process of OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). Previously, tax regulations were not subject to OIRA review, but the 2018 agreement introduced OIRA reviews for tax regulations with certain criteria. The latest agreement aims to expedite the issuance of tax guidance, address backlogs, and facilitate prompt implementation of legislation. Some experts laud the decision, citing the flawed analysis and delays caused by OIRA reviews, while others express concerns about transparency and oversight. The change is seen as a move to streamline the tax-regulatory process and reduce controversy surrounding the review process.Tax Rules Exempt From White House Review Under New Pact (1)Law firm Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer is expanding its presence in the United States by hiring a team of four partners from Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati. The group specializes in crisis and regulatory risk management, cybersecurity, and congressional investigations. Beth George, a former U.S. Department of Defense official, will lead Freshfields' newly formalized strategic risk and crisis management practice in Silicon Valley. The firm has also added Megan Kayo, a cybersecurity partner, in the same location. In Washington, D.C., Freshfields has welcomed Janet Kim and Andrew Dockham, who focus on regulatory enforcement defense and internal corporate investigations. The move is driven by the growing concerns of clients regarding global regulatory impacts and data breach concerns, as well as Freshfields' international reach and commitment in the United States. The firm has been actively expanding its U.S. presence, with recent hires from other law firms. Wilson Sonsini expressed well wishes for the departing lawyers, and Freshfields has a history of recruiting partners from Wilson Sonsini to build its California office.Freshfields is perhaps best known for being compelled to pay 10 million euros ($12.1 million) to settle a German case related to the Cum-Ex tax scandal and its involvement with now-defunct Maple Bank. Freshfields itself did not have to participate in the trial of its two former partners who were charged in the case. The Cum-Ex trades exploited German tax laws and resulted in significant lost revenue for the government.Law firm Freshfields keeps up US expansion with Wilson Sonsini team | ReutersFreshfields to Pay $12 Million to Settle German Cum-Ex Probe (1)The recent incident involving a lawyer's misuse of ChatGPT to write a brief and its cited case law serves as a cautionary tale not just for legal professionals, but also for tax professionals. The lawyer's mistake highlights the limitations of generative artificial intelligence (AI) but more to the point it is illustrative of the potential risks of relying on such technology without a solid understanding of its capabilities. Large language models like ChatGPT can be convincing but may lack factual accuracy. Given time, similar cautionary tales will play out in most industries. To illustrate the point, I created two hypothetical tax practitioners and their ill-advised AI ideas. In one case, an accountant uses ChatGPT to reformat data but inadvertently leaks personal information, resulting in a data breach. The lesson here is to never include sensitive information in prompts given to AI owned by third parties.In the second scenario, a preparer relies on ChatGPT's tax research and receives an incomplete and inaccurate response about alcohol sales tax in Massachusetts. This demonstrates the importance of understanding the nuances of tax law and not relying solely on AI models for accurate information.The proliferation of large language models with public-facing interfaces has changed the level of research proficiency expected from users. While search engines like Google can help determine the credibility of information sources, AI models like ChatGPT can present incorrect information with an air of expertise, making it difficult to discern their accuracy.When using language models for research, it is crucial to exercise caution and verify information from reliable sources. AI should be seen as a tool that requires human judgment and critical thinking to ensure accurate and reliable results. It is akin to using Google on “hard mode” – where the results are intentionally reformatted to appear authoritative. Caveat scriptor.ChatGPT Court Brief Offers Cautionary Tale for Tax Pros, Too Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
In 1963 valt de 22-jarige Ernesto Miranda een 18-jarige vrouw aan. Hij laat haar leven, maar hier stopt de gebeurtenis nog niet. Miranda wordt veroordeeld tot 30 jaar cel en het slachtoffer kan aan een verwerkingsproces beginnen. Tot later blijkt dat Miranda niet op de hoogte was van zijn recht op een advocaat, waardoor hij in hoger beroep gaat. De zaak blijft jaren aanslepen en uiteindelijk zal de U.S. Supreme Court een besluit nemen die het lot van velen verdachten zal veranderen. Deze regel zal bekend komen te staan als de “Miranda warning”.
On June 13, 1966, the outcome of Miranda vs. Arizona provided that suspects must be informed of their specific legal rights when they are placed under arrest. This decision was based on a case in which a defendant, Ernesto Miranda, was accused of robbery, kidnapping, and rape. -- Live odor free products do not use enzymes, fragrances, hydrogen peroxide or detergents, making it safe for pets and kids. Their liquid odor technology is organic, natural, non GMO and green. Get 20% off your purchase, http://bit.ly/42OasiV
Les amateurs de séries policières sont habitués à cette scène, devenue familière. Quand les acteurs incarnant des policiers arrêtent un suspect, ils ne manquent jamais de les avertir qu'ils ont le droit de "garder le silence" et que tout ce qu'ils diront pourra "être retenu contre eux".Ces éléments de langage sont obligatoires et leur emploi remonte au début des années 1960. En 1963, un certain Ernesto Miranda est arrêté par la police de Phoenix, en Arizona.Il est soupçonné d'avoir agressé et violé des jeunes filles. Ce qu'il avoue lors de l'interrogatoire mené par la police. Et ses aveux seront retenus contre lui au cours du procès qui, en 1965, se termine par sa condamnation.Mais l'avocat de Miranda conteste le verdict. Il sait à quel point un suspect non averti peut craquer au cours d'un interrogatoire et faire, dès lors, des aveux compromettants.L'affaire est donc portée devant la Cour suprême des États-Unis. L'argumentation de l'avocat d'Ernesto Miranda, qui s'est adjoint l'aide d'un collègue, s'appuie sur deux amendements de la "Déclaration des droits", ou "United States Bill of Rights".Ce document regroupe les dix premiers amendements à la Constitution américaine. Ceux visés par la défense de Miranda sont les 5e et 6e amendements.Le 5e amendement précisant que "nul ne peut être forcé de témoigner contre lui-même", les avocats en déduisent que, pour éviter ce danger, un suspect doit être autorisé à garder le silence durant la garde à vue précédant l'interrogatoire mené par un magistrat.Ils se fondent ensuite sur le 6e amendement, qui stipule que "tout accusé a droit à un avocat", pour réclamer que le suspect puisse demander l'assistance d'un avocat, qui resterait à ses côtés tout au long de l'interrogatoire.Dans un arrêt du 13 juin 1966, la Cour suprême fait droit à ces demandes. Désormais, une personne arrêtée est informée qu'elle peut garder le silence durant la garde à vue et qu'elle a le droit de consulter un avocat.De ce fait, les aveux d'Ernesto Miranda seront annulés en tant qu'éléments de preuve. Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.
Les amateurs de séries policières sont habitués à cette scène, devenue familière. Quand les acteurs incarnant des policiers arrêtent un suspect, ils ne manquent jamais de les avertir qu'ils ont le droit de "garder le silence" et que tout ce qu'ils diront pourra "être retenu contre eux". Ces éléments de langage sont obligatoires et leur emploi remonte au début des années 1960. En 1963, un certain Ernesto Miranda est arrêté par la police de Phoenix, en Arizona. Il est soupçonné d'avoir agressé et violé des jeunes filles. Ce qu'il avoue lors de l'interrogatoire mené par la police. Et ses aveux seront retenus contre lui au cours du procès qui, en 1965, se termine par sa condamnation. Mais l'avocat de Miranda conteste le verdict. Il sait à quel point un suspect non averti peut craquer au cours d'un interrogatoire et faire, dès lors, des aveux compromettants. L'affaire est donc portée devant la Cour suprême des États-Unis. L'argumentation de l'avocat d'Ernesto Miranda, qui s'est adjoint l'aide d'un collègue, s'appuie sur deux amendements de la "Déclaration des droits", ou "United States Bill of Rights". Ce document regroupe les dix premiers amendements à la Constitution américaine. Ceux visés par la défense de Miranda sont les 5e et 6e amendements. Le 5e amendement précisant que "nul ne peut être forcé de témoigner contre lui-même", les avocats en déduisent que, pour éviter ce danger, un suspect doit être autorisé à garder le silence durant la garde à vue précédant l'interrogatoire mené par un magistrat. Ils se fondent ensuite sur le 6e amendement, qui stipule que "tout accusé a droit à un avocat", pour réclamer que le suspect puisse demander l'assistance d'un avocat, qui resterait à ses côtés tout au long de l'interrogatoire. Dans un arrêt du 13 juin 1966, la Cour suprême fait droit à ces demandes. Désormais, une personne arrêtée est informée qu'elle peut garder le silence durant la garde à vue et qu'elle a le droit de consulter un avocat. De ce fait, les aveux d'Ernesto Miranda seront annulés en tant qu'éléments de preuve. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In 1963 Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping, rape and armed robbery. Ultimately, he gave police a confession but only because he didn't know he had the option not to talk to them… or to get an attorney. Miranda's path through the justice system set a precedent for informing those arrested of their rights. And now the Miranda Warning is something so engrained in us Crime Junkies we could probably recite it on our sleep. Did you know you can listen to this episode ad-free? Join the Fan Club! Visit https://crimejunkieapp.com/library/ to view the current membership options and policies.Source materials for this episode cannot be listed here due to character limitations. For a full list of sources, please visit: https://crimejunkiepodcast.com/precedent-ernesto-miranda/
TVC 599.4: A return visit by actress, filmmaker, acting coach, and entrepreneur Michelle Danner, founder of the Creative Center for the Arts and the Los Angeles Acting Conservatory, and one of the most successful women working in the entertainment industry today. Topics this segment include a look at Michelle's approach to teaching acting (which she calls “the Golden Box”); a preview of Miranda's Victim, a courtroom drama that Michelle produced and directed, which tells the back story of the Miranda rights, from the perspective of the woman who was kidnapped and brutally raped by Ernesto Miranda in 1965; and a tribute to actor Paul Sorvino, whom Michelle directed on two occasions. Want to advertise/sponsor our show? TV Confidential has partnered with AdvertiseCast to handle advertising/sponsorship requests for the podcast edition of our program. They're great to work with and will help you advertise on our show. Please email sales@advertisecast.com or click the link below to get started: https://www.advertisecast.com/TVConfidentialAradiotalkshowabout Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Part 2 of the conversation with former FBI profiler Jim Clemente. Jim opens up about being molested as a teen and then later in life wearing a wire and going undercover for the FBI to bust the guy. Orny asks Jim to break down one Teen Wolf character -- “Greenberg.” Who killed JonBenet Ramsey (Don't ask Jim!) And finally What's Wrong with the Miranda rights and what happened to the guy accused of killing Ernesto Miranda? I'll give you a hint, he chose to remain silent. Also, we had some audio issues at the end. Sorry, but please stick with episode the content is worth it.
Ernesto Miranda did it. There was no question. He confessed. His confession included a statement acknowledging that he was aware of his rights. But no one told him what those rights were. How do you know what you don't know? In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court would overturn his conviction and say that Miranda's Constitutional rights had been violated in obtaining the confession. Join siblings Tom and Chris as we break down the case and remind you why a strong criminal defense is paramount to receiving a fair trial.Chris is a lifelong true crime fan. Her brother, Tom is a criminal defense attorney. Chris loves to tell him about interesting cases and get his legal insights.If you are enjoying the show and would like to support us, join our Patreon for only $2 a month! That's like fifty cents per episode! Also, reviews on Apple podcasts would be greatly appreciated as it helps new listeners to find us! Find our show here.Resources:Azcentral.com - Miranda and the right to remain silent: The Phoenix storyWikipedia - Miranda v. ArizonaRight to Remain Silent: Miranda v. Arizona
Ernesto Miranda was arrested at his home and taken in custody to a police station where he was identified in a lineup. He was then interrogated by two police officers for two hours, which resulted in a signed, written confession. At trial, the oral and written confessions were presented to the jury. Miranda was found guilty of kidnapping and rape and was sentenced to 20-30 years imprisonment on each count. All of that was done without reading Ernesto his rights. He claimed then, that he didn't know what his rights were. Guilty or innocent, you should know your rights and invoke them and not incriminate yourself. The Miranda vs. Arizona case was one of four that went before the Supreme Court in 1966. These cases are the reason the police have to read your your rights when arresting you. Join us as we deep dive Miranda vs. Arizona. Join our Cruel Tea Party for exclusive episodes! patreon.com/cruelteaWanna see the other stuff we do? Click here: https://linktr.ee/cruelteaSupport the show
Virtually every adult in the United States is familiar with their Miranda rights. Our culture is obsessed with crime, we love movies and television shows about law enforcement and shady organizations which spar against federal agents.As a result, we have all become familiar with variations of the lines "you have the right to remain silent, anything you say can - and will - be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, once will be provided to you at no cost."In America, before any law enforcement officer can conduct a custodial interrogation of a suspect, whether they're under arrest or not, they are required to inform that individual of these rights and secure a voluntary waiver, indicating that the individual understands his or her rights and is willing to speak to law enforcement under the current conditions.But have you ever stopped to think about why law enforcement is required to affirmatively tell you about the rights you have? It's actually quite counter-intuitive. The police or the FBI is required to tell you that you can refuse to answer any questions before they are permitted to ask you anything. Shouldn't it be an individual's responsibility to know, and assert, their own rights?In this episode, we look at the origins of the requirement that law enforcement inform suspects and defendants of their rights to remain silent and right to counsel. Listen to the story of Ernesto Miranda, who was arrested for kidnapping and rape, voluntary answered questions and ended up confessing without ever knowing that the had the right to refuse to answer or the right to have a lawyer there with him. His appeal became the catalyst for one of the most transformative Supreme Court opinions of all time.With the episode, the goal is to provide some insights into the origins of one of the most sacred and cherished rights for American criminal law. And show how close it was to never existing.
Alexa, Ryan, Adam, Holly, and Megan discuss the past 2 weeks cases and also the true crime topic of whether or not video games and media play a role in the violence in society.
Ernesto Arturo Miranda was an American criminal and laborer whose conviction on kidnapping, rape, and armed robbery charges based on his confession under police interrogation 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 by police. This warning is known as a Miranda warning.
This week, Alexa tells Ryan the case of Ernesto Miranda and how his arrest changed law enforcement procedure, forever. Show Sources: https://www.encyclopedia.com/law/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/miranda-ernesthttps://www.britannica.com/event/Miranda-v-Arizonahttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernesto_Mirandahttps://law.jrank.org/pages/3105/Ernesto-Miranda-Trials-1963-1967.htmlhttps://www.history.com/.amp/this-day-in-history/the-miranda-rights-are-established
Ernesto Arturo Miranda was an American criminal and laborer whose conviction on kidnapping, rape, and armed robbery charges based on his confession under police interrogation 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 by police. This warning is known as a Miranda warning.
On June 13, 1966, an important Supreme Court decision was announced. It affected the way law enforcement all over the country did their job. But, if you've never been arrested, you might only know about this landmark case from watching crime dramas. Listen to find out about Ernesto Miranda and Miranda vs. Arizona. SOURCES “About the Supreme Court.” United States Courts. Accessed September 19, 2021. https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/about. “Ernesto Miranda.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, August 10, 2021. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernesto_Miranda. Kimble, Mark. “Ernest Miranda's Legacy: 'You Have the Right...'.” Tucson Citizen (Tucson, Arizona), January 27, 2005. www.newspapers.com. “Miranda v. Arizona.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, August 22, 2021. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona. Moller, Dave, and Liz Kellar. “Former DA and Fine Printer Harold Berliner Dies.” TheUnion.com, April 27, 2010. https://www.theunion.com/news/local-news/former-da-and-fine-printer-harold-berliner-dies/. “Police Get Official Word On Interrogation Procedures.” Chula Vista Star-News (Chula Vista, California), June 23, 1966. www.newspapers.com. Shine, Jacqui. “How ‘You Have the Right to Remain Silent' Became the Standard Miranda Warning.” Slate Magazine. Slate, July 2, 2014. https://slate.com/human-interest/2014/07/miranda-warning-history-how-the-language-of-the-warning-became-standard.html. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app
We've decided to do the background of major Supreme Court cases that lay the foundation of the justice system today. If you've ever watch a crime show, you've heard the Miranda rights. This episode gives you the story of how it came to be and the absolutely wild tale of Ernesto Miranda.If you are interested in starting your own podcast we highly recommend Buzzsprout! It's easy to use and keeps all your podcasts in one place. Click the link below to get started and help us out!https://www.buzzsprout.com/?referrer_id=1789618Check us out on social media!Instagram:https://www.instagram.com/obscuriositypodFacebook:https://www.facebook.com/ObscuriosityPodcastTikTok:https://www.tiktok.com/@obscuriositypodcastContact us at:ObscuriosityPodcast@gmail.comSupport the show (https://www.patreon.com/obscuriositypodcast)
In this podcast, I talk about a few details about the Ernesto Miranda case. It is short but it hits all of the major details about it
Ernesto Miranda's “Miranda v. Arizona”
I veckans avsnitt gästas podden av Ernesto Miranda. Vi pratar ner vinsten mot Degerfors och lägger ett extra fokus på världens bästa Karlsson. Vi pratar även om Lukas Johnssons avsked, Arkens gärde och att det är Uppsalas OS. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
This week Megan tells the Story of Ernesto Miranda, whose life has left a lasting impact on the criminal justice system in the United States. Megan has noticed a lot of Bachelor Nation lives in Arizona, and SEVERAL members of Bach Nation go to Habit Salon outside of Phoenix, SO, Megan tells the story of Ernesto Miranda, a young man who grew up near Phoenix, Arizona, and was murdered at the age of 34. Ernesto had his own criminal history, including a 1963 rape and kidnapping. Megan won’t go into details about this. Ernesto’s trial (and re-trial) led to the United States Supreme Court case that has had a lasting impact on the criminal justice system in America - it’s Miranda v. Arizona (aka your Miranda rights). CONTENT WARNING: Sexual Assault Promo: The Cracked Pot Connect with us at linktr.ee/CrimeandRoses There you can see links to listen and share the podcast and connect with us on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook. Email: CrimeandRoses@gmail.com. Send us crime suggestions and any questions or comments you may have. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/crimeandroses/support
Příběh muže, který změnil zákony napříč Spojenými Státy, Ernesto Miranda a další z těch, kteří dostali amnestii, bohužel. Josef Gančařík se totiž před propuštěním rozhodně nenapravil.
For the first instalment of this weekly podcast, I will be looking at the case of Ernetso Miranda, finding out the story behind our beloved Miranda Rights. !Triger Warning! There are mentions of rape so please watch at your own risk.
In this episode we will discuss the Ernesto Miranda case, and how it created the reading of the rights.
This is my case study on Ernesto Miranda and it explains how we were given our Miranda rights and Ernesto Miranda's story.
In this episode, Drew and Corbin discuss how one man, Ernesto Miranda, would forever change the face of criminal procedure by paving the way for the "Miranda Rights" as we all know them today. That's not the only interesting thing surrounding Miranda, however. Ernesto lived a life of crime until a twist that you could only hear about in storybooks unfolded. Tune in to find out! Also, don't forget to check us out on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, and YouTube! As always, thanks for listening!
How bad does it have to get before the law is changed? The girls find out in this week's episode covering crimes that changed laws. Talicza follows a double jeopardy case with the murder of Julie Hogg and Rachael covers the convicted rapist Ernesto Miranda. Like what you're hearing? Leave a rate and review in Apple Podcasts and let us know what you think by visiting us on our socials:Instagram: @transatlanticcrimeTwitter: @transatcrimepodFacebook: facebook.com/transatlanticcrimePatreon: patreon.com/transatlanticcrime And check out our merch store:https://www.redbubble.com/shop/ap/59763237
This episode is a quick summary of Ernesto Miranda's case file.
Ernesto Miranda confessed to crimes he committed without knowing his rights, his lawyers think if he knew his rights then he might not have confessed.
Discussing the case of Ernesto Miranda
Today, I will be talking about Ernesto Miranda and why his case is important to US law. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/talon-polley/support
Today I dive into the Case of Ernesto Miranda and how to would change the basis for how U.S. law is carried out way before it even reaches the court room.
This podcast describes a little about the case of Ernesto Miranda
Another Arizona legend! Follow us on Instagram @twomurdermamas for pics and more. (Also, there could be some surprise blooper content if you listen long enough...) Thanks for listening! Please feel free to email us at twomurdermamas@gmail.com with suggestions or comments! Ardis and Cheryl --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/two-murder-mamas/message
Do you know what your rights are under police custody? Learn about the origin of where the Miranda warning comes from with this story of Ernesto Miranda in 1966.
Bienvenidos una vez más a Juego De Asesinos Podcast!Hoy les traemos una de nuestras historias favoritas, un poco más ligera para contrarrestar las semanas de relatos tan duros que trajimos al podcast! esperamos que les guste mucho que lo hicimos con mucho carino, para todos ustedes!Esta es la historia de Ernesto Miranda, y el porqué su caso causó revuelo en el sistema de justicia criminal de todo Estados Unidos, aquí te contamos la historia!!.APOYANOS EN PATREON:APOYANOS EN PATREON:APOYANOS EN IVOOX:NO OLVIDES SEGUIRNOS EN LAS REDES SOCIALES,, DEJARNOS COMENTARIOS, LIKES SON DE MUCHISIMA AYUDA!Fuentes:Miranda: The Story of America's Right to Remain Silent by Gary L. Stuart, published by The University of Arizona Press, 2004."50 years since Miranda vs. Arizona case argued at Supreme Court," March 1, 2016, azcentral.Miranda v. Arizona, Justia U.S. Supreme Court."You Have the Right to Remain Silent: The Strange Story behind the most cited case in American history," by H. Mitchell Caldwell and Michael S. Lief, American Heritage, August/September 2006, Vol. 57, Issue 4.Miranda v. Arizona, Landmark Cases, Expanding Civil Rights, Supreme Court History, December 2006, The Supreme Court, PBS.URLhttps://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/miranda-rightshttps://www.thehardylawfirm.com/what-are-miranda-rights-and-who-was-ernesto-miranda/http://www.mirandawarning.org/historyofmirandawarning.htmlhttps://archives.nbclearn.com/portal/site/k-12/flatview?cuecard=5210https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-miranda-warning-is-born-47-years-ago-today.Musica: Sneaky Snitch
Bienvenidos una vez más a Juego De Asesinos Podcast! Hoy les traemos una de nuestras historias favoritas, un poco más ligera para contrarrestar las semanas de relatos tan duros que trajimos al podcast! esperamos que les guste mucho que lo hicimos con mucho carino, para todos ustedes! Esta es la historia de Ernesto Miranda, y el porqué su caso causó revuelo en el sistema de justicia criminal de todo Estados Unidos, aquí te contamos la historia!! . APOYANOS EN PATREON: APOYANOS EN PATREON: APOYANOS EN IVOOX: NO OLVIDES SEGUIRNOS EN LAS REDES SOCIALES,, DEJARNOS COMENTARIOS, LIKES SON DE MUCHISIMA AYUDA! Fuentes: Miranda: The Story of America’s Right to Remain Silent by Gary L. Stuart, published by The University of Arizona Press, 2004. “50 years since Miranda vs. Arizona case argued at Supreme Court,” March 1, 2016, azcentral. Miranda v. Arizona, Justia U.S. Supreme Court. “You Have the Right to Remain Silent: The Strange Story behind the most cited case in American history,” by H. Mitchell Caldwell and Michael S. Lief, American Heritage, August/September 2006, Vol. 57, Issue 4. Miranda v. Arizona, Landmark Cases, Expanding Civil Rights, Supreme Court History, December 2006, The Supreme Court, PBS. URL https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/miranda-rights https://www.thehardylawfirm.com/what-are-miranda-rights-and-who-was-ernesto-miranda/ http://www.mirandawarning.org/historyofmirandawarning.html https://archives.nbclearn.com/portal/site/k-12/flatview?cuecard=5210 https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-miranda-warning-is-born-47-years-ago-today . Musica: Sneaky Snitch
Bienvenidos una vez más a Juego De Asesinos Podcast! Hoy les traemos una de nuestras historias favoritas, un poco más ligera para contrarrestar las semanas de relatos tan duros que trajimos al podcast! esperamos que les guste mucho que lo hicimos con mucho carino, para todos ustedes! Esta es la historia de Ernesto Miranda, y el porqué su caso causó revuelo en el sistema de justicia criminal de todo Estados Unidos, aquí te contamos la historia!! . APOYANOS EN PATREON: APOYANOS EN PATREON: APOYANOS EN IVOOX: NO OLVIDES SEGUIRNOS EN LAS REDES SOCIALES,, DEJARNOS COMENTARIOS, LIKES SON DE MUCHISIMA AYUDA! Fuentes: Miranda: The Story of America’s Right to Remain Silent by Gary L. Stuart, published by The University of Arizona Press, 2004. “50 years since Miranda vs. Arizona case argued at Supreme Court,” March 1, 2016, azcentral. Miranda v. Arizona, Justia U.S. Supreme Court. “You Have the Right to Remain Silent: The Strange Story behind the most cited case in American history,” by H. Mitchell Caldwell and Michael S. Lief, American Heritage, August/September 2006, Vol. 57, Issue 4. Miranda v. Arizona, Landmark Cases, Expanding Civil Rights, Supreme Court History, December 2006, The Supreme Court, PBS. URL https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/miranda-rights https://www.thehardylawfirm.com/what-are-miranda-rights-and-who-was-ernesto-miranda/ http://www.mirandawarning.org/historyofmirandawarning.html https://archives.nbclearn.com/portal/site/k-12/flatview?cuecard=5210 https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-miranda-warning-is-born-47-years-ago-today . Musica: Sneaky Snitch
Lindsey and Margo discuss the Miranda warnings - what they are, when they are required, and what happens if they're not given. Quite the legacy for an Arizona defendant named Ernesto Miranda. Enjoy!Website: TrueCrimeBCPodcast.com Instagram: @TrueCrimeBCPodcast Twitter: @TrueCrimeBC Email: TrueCrimeBCPodcast@gmail.comThis podcast is powered by Pinecast.
The birth of the Miranda rights and the life of Ernesto Miranda. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/themirandarights/message
Hoje fizemos um bate papo super bacana com o Ernesto Mirada ( Gerente Territorial Sul e Sudeste Ontex)
We all know that Miranda rights are important. They’re a staple in every episode of Law & Order. They’re a quick and concise way of making a person aware of their rights. But how did we get Miranda rights? Well, it’s complicated. And it all started with a world-class douchebag named Ernesto Miranda. Then, Kristin tells us about anchorwoman Christine Craft. Christine was good at her job. By the time she was hired to co-anchor the evening news in Kansas City, she’d proven herself as a talented reporter and a hard worker. But Christine was no dummy. She knew that women news anchors get unfairly judged for their looks. So before she took the job in Kansas City, she told the station management that she wasn’t looking for a makeover. They assured her they were hiring her for her journalistic talent. They were full of shit. And now for a note about our process. For each episode, Kristin reads a bunch of articles, then spits them back out in her very limited vocabulary. Brandi copies and pastes from the best sources on the web. And sometimes Wikipedia. (No shade, Wikipedia. We love you.) We owe a huge debt of gratitude to the real experts who covered these cases. In this episode, Kristin pulled from: “The surfing and survival of Christine Craft,” by Elisabeth Bumiller for the Washington Post “Judging the news by appearance,” The Age “Jury awards Christine Craft $325,000,” by Peter Kerr for The New York Times “Once fired for appearance: Christine Craft to be anchor in Sacramento,” by Jay Sharbutt for The Los Angeles Times The appellate court opinion (https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/766/1205/303027/) on Justia.com The book, “Waiting for Prime Time: The Women of Television News” by Marlene Sanders and Marcia Rock “Manager: Appearance key for the TV news anchor,” United Press International “Christine Craft” wikipedia In this episode, Brandi pulled from: “Miranda v. Arizona: The Crime That Changed American Justice” by Mark Gribben, The Crime Library “Miranda v. Arizona”http://wikipedia.org “Facts and Case Summary - Miranda v. Arizona” USCourts.gov (http://uscourts.gov) “Miranda v. Arizona” Encyclopedia Britannica
When a man named Ernesto Miranda confessed to a rape and kidnapping on March 13, 1963, his trial went all the way to the Supreme Court becoming one of the most well-known cases of the 20th century: "Miranda v Arizona." Nathan and Joanne look at the interrogation that led to the Supreme Court decision and ask how the Miranda warning transformed from technical bit of police procedure to pop-culture lexicon. Download a full transcript of this episode (https://www.backstoryradio.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2018/04/Right_To_Remain_Silent.pdf) . Image: Ernesto Miranda, 1963. Source: Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records, History and Archives Division, Phoenix, #00-0517. BackStory is funded in part by our listeners. You can help keep the episodes coming by supporting the show: https://www.backstoryradio.org/support
The inside story of Ernesto Miranda and the Miranda Rights
Rod Arquette Show Daily Rundown - Wednesday, April 4, 20184:20 pm: The Utah Medical Association has released a statement saying Utah voters have been misled by the organization backing the medical marijuana initiative in Utah and the group’s CEO, Michelle McOmber, joins Rod to explain what the UMA means by that statement4:35 pm: Paul Mero, President and CEO of the Next Generation Freedom Fund, joins Rod to discuss his recent op-ed in which he says Mitt Romney has a desire to kick DACA kids out of the country, a belief Mero says doesn’t jive with Utah values6:05 pm: Boyd Matheson, Opinion Editor at the Deseret News, joins Rod for their weekly segment about the world of politics.6:20 pm: University of Utah Law Professor Amos Guiora joins Rod to discuss his latest book about one of the most influential Chief Justices in the history of the Supreme Court, “Earl Warren, Ernesto Miranda and Terrorism”6;35 pm: Naomi Schaefer Riley, a visiting fellow focusing on child welfare for the American Enterprise Institute, joins the show to give us her thoughts on Utah’s new free-range parenting law
In our latest episode, we explore the story of two brothers, Roy and Reynaldo. Born 15 years apart to different fathers, the two men found very different paths as they grew up. By the time he reached adulthood, Reynaldo decided he’d had enough of his brother’s criminal antics. After Roy died in prison, it took Reynaldo years before he was ready to try to make sense of the life his brother led — in fact, it took a dream. Like many Mexicans and Mexican-Americans, Reynaldo assumed his family’s ties to their indigenous roots were severed centuries ago. But as we discovered, that rupture was not so far in the past. The trauma and scars remain alive in the present — from massacres and enslavement to lynchings, extermination and displacement. For Reynaldo what started as a search for insight about his brother turned into a journey that spanned cultures, nations and centuries — a journey of discovery about the ongoing struggle for a sense of place and self in the American West.Episode 03: Reynaldo in Yaqui Land was first posted on February 20, 2018 at 10:58 pm.©2017 "Voices of Monterey Bay". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at julie@voicesofmontereybay.org
Ernesto Miranda had lived a life of crime since he was young. But all of that ceased when he was arrested for the umpteenth time. This arrest would lead to one of the most significant changes in rules regarding the handling of arrests & police interrogations. Although guilty of all his crimes, his lawyers, in an attempt to preserve justice, opened a case known as Miranda VS Arizona. This helped to form a law in which the accused are afforded what are now known as the Miranda Rights. If you have a Stranger Danger story, send it to itsaboutdamncrime@gmail.com or submit it on our website.Want some merch? Visit our website at ItsAboutDamnCrime.com Please consider supporting our show by joining Patreon.com/iadcpodcastWant to keep up on our Jam of the Weeks? You can listen to our playlist at https://open.spotify.com/user/125157452/playlist/41vsfx8vrUkKHVX9AD8A3m?si=97_uWGJCQEqvtfZtDzYTaQFacebook & Instagram- Its About Damn CrimeTwiiter & Snapchat- iadcpodcast
Most people today are very familiar with the Miranda rights police read upon arrest. In this episode we explore the crime of Ernesto Miranda and how it led to the supreme court precedent of the Miranda warnings. For more information on the California bill mentioned in this episode, go to http://fairsentencingforyouth.org/miranda-rights-for-youth/ Music in this episode is by Kai Engle Special thanks to Officer Sheridan Watts for his help with this episode. Supreme court audio courtesy of www.oyez.org
Oliver Brown, the lead plaintiff in Brown v. the Board of Education was a parent of a child denied access to a Topeka Kansas School. Clarence Gideon changed the way poor defendant are treated in court. Ernesto Miranda and Jane Roe both, in their own ways, were part of cases that expanded the rights of individual citizens. The latest name added to that pantheon is that of Jim Obergefell. He was the named plaintiff in the Obergefell vs. Hodges which , just one year ago, enshrined the civil right of same sex marriage in all 50 states. Jim has recently written about his experience in Love Wins: The Lovers and Lawyers Who Fought the Landmark Case for Marriage Equality My conversation with Him Obergefell:
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
