The Constitutional Right of Defendant (Miranda Right “Warnings”) in the Point of View of the U.S.Supreme Court

Ernesto Miranda was arrested at his home and taken to the police station in phoenix, Arizona, where he was interrogated by two police officers for two hours. He was not advised of his right to remain silent or his right to attorney. Miranda signed a written confession, and was later convicted of kidnapping and rape. He appealed his conviction to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was asked to decide whether statements by suspects during custodial interrogation, where the suspect was not advised of his right to remain silent or to have any attorney, are admissible in court. The court held that the evidence was not admissible, and that Miranda was therefore entitled to a new trial. Ernesto Miranda was later retried for the same offense without using his confession, and was reconvicted on other evidence. The police gave his alleged assailant, an illegal alien; the proper Miranda rights (warnings). The case of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 486,1966, is the best known and perhaps the most significant case ever decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in the area of criminal procedure.