In Miranda v Arizona (1966), the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the confession obtained from Ernesto Miranda without informing him of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and his Sixth Amendment right to an attorney should have been excluded from his trial for rape and kidnapping. Miranda had confessed to the crimes during interrogation where police did not notify him of his constitutional rights, and his attorney argued this made his confession illegally obtained. The Supreme Court concluded defendants in police custody must be informed of these rights before interrogation.

1. Miranda v Arizona (1966)
By Lucy Marchese

2. Brief summery
 Miranda was charged with rape and
kidnapping and was interrogated by
the police. The police officers
questioning him did not notify him of
his Fifth Amendment right against
self-incrimination, or of his Sixth
Amendment right to the assistance of
an attorney. This lead to Miranda
confessing to the crimes with which
he was charged.

3. Arguments
For Miranda: His attorney argued that his
confession should have been excluded from trial
because he had not been informed of his rights.
Also an attorney was not present during his
interrogation. The police officers involved
admitted that they had not given Miranda any
explanation of his rights. His confession was
illegally obtained and should be thrown out.
 For Arizona: Ernesto Miranda was convicted of a
crime before so he must have known his rights
already. Also he signed the confession freely. The
prosecution was proper, and his conviction was
based on Arizona law.

4. Supreme Court decision
 In a 5-4 opinion, the Supreme Court ruled
in favor of Miranda. The majority opinion,
concluded that defendants arrested under
state law must be informed of their
constitutional rights against self-
incrimination and to representation by an
attorney before being interrogated when
in police custody. These rights are in the
5th and 6th amendments.