". . . The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination." —Chief Justice Earl Warren, speaking for the majority (http://www.landmarkcases.org/miranda/home.html).
Ernesto Miranda was a poor Mexican migrant who lived in Arizona in 1963. A woman indicted Miranda of kidnap and rape. The police detained Miranda and asked him queries regarding the crime for two hours.
The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution says that those indicted of crimes have the right to be silent. The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution says that they as well have the right to have an attorney to help protect them. The police did not tell Miranda that he had these rights while they arrested him. Subsequent to the police were ended asking Miranda questions, he signed a declaration. The police used his declaration in the trial and Miranda was condemned of the crime. The judge determined he must serve twenty to thirty years in prison for each crime.
Miranda appealed his case to the Supreme Court of Arizona. His attorney argued that his confession should not have been used as evidence in his trial because Miranda had not been conversant of his rights, and no attorney had been present to help him during his interrogation. The Arizona Supreme Court deprived his appeal and upheld Miranda's conviction (Meltzer, Milton., 1990).
The Supreme Court of the United States decided to hear Miranda's case. The decision in Miranda v. Arizona was passed down in 1966.
The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, but, in a decision that still reverberates to this day, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed Miranda's conviction and ordered the confession suppressed because, "Miranda was not in any way appraised of his right to consult with an attorney and to have one present during the interrogation."..............
