UFU-MG - Inglês - 2019 - Vestibular - 2º Dia
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
Ernesto Miranda, a Mexican immigrant living in Phoenix, Arizona, was identified in a police lineup by a woman, who accused him of kidnapping and raping her. Miranda was arrested and questioned by the police for two hours until he confessed to the crimes. During the interrogation, police did not tell Miranda about his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination or his Sixth Amendment right to an attorney. The case went to trial in an Arizona state court and the prosecutor used the confession as evidence against Miranda, who was convicted and sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison. Miranda's attorney appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, which upheld the conviction. Then he appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which agreed to hear it along with four similar cases. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Miranda. This decision gave rise to what has become known as the Miranda Warning.
<https://www.uscourts.gov>. Acesso em 10.jan.2019.
According to the text,
I. a fundamental right in US law has been named after a Mexican immigrant.
II. Ernesto Miranda was innocent of the crimes he was accused of in 1966.
III. the Supreme Court considered other cases when judging Miranda’s appeal.
IV. Miranda confessed to his crimes and served a 20 to 30-year sentence.
V. immigrants in the US are subject to the same laws as US citizens.
Assinale a alternativa que contém somente afirmativas corretas.
A) II e III.
B) II e V.
C) I e IV.
D) I e III.
A
B
C
D
E
