Miranda was charged with rape and kidnapping and interrogated by police without being informed of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination or his Sixth Amendment right to an attorney. He subsequently confessed to the crimes. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Miranda, concluding that defendants arrested under state law must be informed of their constitutional rights against self-incrimination and to legal representation before interrogation while in police custody.

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 5 th and 6 th amendments.