Miranda v. Arizona Essay

Supreme Court Decision The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in regard of Miranda and it also enforced the Miranda warning to be given to a person creation interrogated while in the custody of the police. Miranda Warning You take a leak the right to remain silent. Anything you say or do can and leave be held against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you? The Supreme Court held that Mirandas constitutional rights were not violated during interrogation. Case background signal A Mexican immigrant residing in Phoenix, Arizona, Ernesto Miranda, was identified to be a suspect in the line-up of a woman who accused him of rape and kidnapping. Police then arrested and interrogated Miranda. It took up to at least two hours of interrogation by police until Miranda the confessed to the crimes. The confession was written.During the two hours of int errogation, police did not once mention Mirandas neither fifth Amendment Protection against self-incrimination nor his Sixth amendment right to have the right to an attorney. After Mirandas confession the case was then taken to trial hosted by Arizona claim court an prosecutors used the oral and written confession as evidence against Miranda. Miranda was then found guilty and he was convicted and sentenced to 20-30 years in prison on each count. The conviction was then upheld due to the fact the Mirandas attorney appealed to Arizonas Supreme Court which then led to the case being appealed to the United States Supreme Court which also connected the case with four other similar ones. The court later came to an agreement that it is mandatory that the police have the role of protecting the rights of the accused suspect guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. After the Supreme Court came to the ruling, the rights to be read were the named the Miranda Rights in honor of Ernesto Mi randa.