Miranda vs. Arizona In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court ruled that detained criminal suspects, prior to police questioning, must be informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and against self-incrimination. Ernesto Miranda was the plaintiff and the state of Arizona was the defendant.
Ernesto Miranda was convicted of the March 1963 kidnapping and rape of an eighteen-year-old girl in Phoenix, Arizona. After the crime the police picked up Miranda because he fit the description of the girl’s attacker. The officers took him into an interrogation room and told him that he had been identified by the victim, although that was false. After the police questioned Miranda for two hours, he confessed. At the trial, the defense counsel tricked one of the detectives into admitting that Miranda was never given the opportunity to seek advice from an attorney before his interrogation. Miranda was convicted and sentenced to 40-60 years in prison. When he tried to appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court set aside his conviction. Then Chief Justice Warren wrote: “Prior to and questioning, the person must be warned that he has the right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed…”
Miranda was retried, only this time without his confession being introduced into evidence at the trial, he was convicted again. Even though his original confession couldn’t be used, one of his old girlfriends told court that he told her about the rape and kidnapping. After Miranda was paroled in 1972, spent time in and out of prison before he was finally stabbed to death in a bar. Thanks to this case the United States now has Miranda rights: “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney during interrogation; if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you.”, that all police must read to a person when they are arrested, to inform them of their rights.
This ruling was needed in America, because some people that are arrested are innocent. If this case