Miranda V. Arizona

Miranda v. Arizona
Ever since I started watching movies and televisions shows involving any police arrest, like many people, I was always curious about the long and usual warnings that police officers read to the suspects after arresting them. My curiosity and fascination about the warnings known as “Miranda warnings”   made me do some research about it and when I found out that it was the result of a landmark Supreme Court case, I decided to choose the case as my research topic. “Miranda warnings” was adopted in U.S. law following the 1966 Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court decision, which found that the Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment rights of Ernesto Arturo Miranda had been violated during his arrest and trial for domestic violence.
HISTORY OF THE CASE
On March 13, 1963, a Mexican immigrant Ernesto Miranda, was arrested at his home and taken in custody to a Phoenix police station. He was there indentified by the crime victim in a police lineup. He was charged with rape and kidnapping. The police then took him to “Interrogation Room No.2” of the detective bureau. There he was questioned by two police officers who did not inform him of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, or his Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of an attorney. After two hours of interrogation, the officers emerged from the room with a written confession signed by Miranda. At the top of the statement was a typed paragraph stating that the confession was made voluntarily, without threats or promises of immunity and “with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me.”
At his trial before a jury, the written confession was admitted into evidence over the objection of defense counsel, and the officers testified to the prior oral confession made by Miranda during the interrogation. Miranda was found guilty of kidnapping and rape. He was sentenced to 20 to 30 years’ imprisonment on each count, the sentence to run concurrently... [continues]

Read full essay