Download - Arizona V Fulminante
Liz Prokop & Ravyn Silva
Sorry when I, Ravyn, say “Sarviola”… it is indeed Sarivola.
Oreste Fulminante left the state of Arizona Later imprisoned for another crime in the state of New York Befriended Anthony Sarivola, a paid informant of the FBI Fulminante agreed to tell Sarivola the truth in exchange for protection
from other inmates Confessed to Sarivola and Sarivola’s wife Fulminante indicted in Arizona for first-degree murder Fulminante thought his fifth amendment and fourteenth amendment
rights were violated Convicted of murder and sentenced to death
Fulminante felt his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination, and his fourteenth amendment due process rights had been violated
The Supreme Court’s job was to judge whether or not the confessions made by Fulminante were coerced and whether his rights were violated or not
The court decided that the confessions were coerced and couldn’t be used as evidence in the trial
There was a new trial, but the judges made the same decision
This case created a new precedent: that a coerced confession used in a trial does not always change a conviction.
Do you think coerced confessions should be credible as evidence in court?
How does the Arizona v. Fulminante case relate to this cartoon?
Stu's views. "Arizona vs. Fulminante." Cartoon.
Stu's Views. Web. http://www.stus.com/stus-
search.php.
Oyez. "Arizona v.
Fulminante.“http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-
1999/1990/1990_89_839
Class Reading
We like this song