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