Miranda v. Arizona established that the police must inform suspects of their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and their Sixth Amendment right to an attorney before questioning. Ernesto Miranda was interrogated by police for two hours without being informed of his rights and confessed to rape and kidnapping. His confession was allowed at trial, but the Supreme Court ultimately ruled 5-4 that his confession should have been excluded because he was not informed of his constitutional rights prior to questioning.

1. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) By Justin Schimek

2. Miranda v. Arizona Case Background In 1963 Ernesto Miranda was accused of rape by a woman who identified him in a police line up. Miranda was charged with rape and kidnapping and was questioned by police for 2 hours but was never informed of his 5 th amendment right against self incrimination or his 6 th amendment right to the assistance of an attorney. As a result of his interrogation, he confessed in writing to the crimes of which he was charged, his written statement also included his acknowledgement that he was aware of his right against self-incrimination. Miranda was sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison for each crime

3. Miranda, The Plaintive His attorney argued that his confession should have been excluded from trial because he had not been informed of his rights, nor had an attorney been present during his interrogation.

4. Arizona, The Complainant The police officers involved admitted that they had not given Miranda any explanation of his rights. They argued, however, that because Miranda had been convicted of a crime in the past, he must have been aware of his rights. The Arizona Supreme Court denied his appeal and upheld his conviction.

5. The Verdict Miranda's defense attorney appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court. Eventually the case ended up at the supreme court where it was decided in favor of Miranda with a 5-4 vote.