My Supreme Court Case: Miranda V. Arizona

My Supreme Court case is Miranda V. Arizona. This case represents the consolidation of four cases, in each of the cases which the defendant all confessed guilt after being questing without being told their Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights during an interrogation. This case was happening on March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in his house and brought to the police station where he was questioned by police officers in connection with a kidnapping and rape case. After two hours of interrogation, the police obtained a written confession from Miranda which confession was admitted into evidence at trial despite the objection of the defense attorney and the fact that the police officers had not asked Miranda of his right to have an attorney
By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.” The Court also held that “without proper safeguards, the process of in-custody interrogation of persons suspected or accused of crime contains inherently compelling pressures which work to undermine the individual’s will to resist and to compel him to speak where he would otherwise do so freely.” Therefore, a defendant “must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.” As those reasons, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Arizona in Miranda, reversed the judgment of the New York Court of Appeals in Vignera, reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Westover, and affirmed the judgment of the Supreme Court of California in Stewart.