The Case Of Miranda V. Arizona

In June of 1966, the outcome of the trial - Miranda v. Arizona declared that suspects must be informed of their specific legal rights when being placed under arrest, bringing about the creation of the Miranda Rights and forever altering all criminal arrests and police conduct.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona addressed four different cases involving custodial interrogations. In each of these cases, the defendant was questioned by police officers, detectives, or a prosecuting attorney in a room in which he was cut off from the outside world. In none of these cases was the defendant given a full and effective warning of his rights at the outset of the interrogation process. In all the cases, the questioning elicited oral admissions
An 18-year-old Phoenix woman had told police officers that she had been kidnapped, driven to the desert and raped. On March 13, 1963, Phoenix Police went to Miranda’s home and arrested him on charges of kidnap and rape. He was then taken to the police station and identified by the victim in a lineup. After being identified he was taken into an interrogation room where police proceeded cross examining him about his whereabouts. Miranda was not told of his rights to counsel prior to questioning. Two hours later, investigators emerged from the room with a written confession signed by Miranda. The confession included a typed disclaimer, also signed by Miranda, stating that he had “full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me,” and that he knowingly waived these rights. Despite the statement typed on the top of the sheet, he was never told of and aware of his constitutional rights. Two weeks later at the preliminary hearing once again Miranda’s rights were denied. At trial, no evidence was presented that Miranda had ever been told that he did not have to talk to police or that he had the right to a lawyer. His defense lawyer objected to letting the jury see the confession, but the judge overruled the objection. The jury found Miranda guilty of the charges of kidnapping and rape. He was sentenced to 20 to 30 years on each of the two counts, which
The failure to articulate his given rights to council and to remain silent that were guaranteed to all persons by the 5th and 6th amendments was ruled that it does not automatically result in the defendant being freed. Instead it only means that the confession cannot be used against the defendant in a court of law. Despite the relative lack of evidence against him, Miranda was re-tried without the confession. In a 5-4 majority the Court voted to overturn Miranda's conviction. Chief Justice Warren declared that it is the state’s duty to establish that “procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination” are followed. “The current practice of 'incommunicado' [unable to communicate with the world] interrogation is at odds with one of our Nation's most cherished principles—that the individual may not be compelled to incriminate himself.” After Miranda’s conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court, the State of Arizona retried him. In October 1967, he was judged guilty and sentenced again. He served 11 years before he was let out on parole in 1972. A few years later, Ernesto Miranda was stabbed and murdered in the men’s room of a bar after a poker game in January 1976. Even though Miranda’s case has long since passed its time, his case remains predominant in the