Ernesto Miranda's Fifth And Sixth Amendment Rights

Ernesto Miranda, a suspect charged with rape, kidnapping and robbery, had his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights violated during a police interrogation. These injustices lead to a United States Supreme Court trial, whose outcome forever imprints our justice system.

Ernesto Miranda, a resident of Phoenix, was charged for rape, kidnapping, and robbery in 1963. Miranda was identified by the victim and he was detained and interrogated by police for two hours, where he allegedly conceded to the crimes he was charged of and signed a written statement included with a typed disclaimer, without any attorney present. The police neglected to apprise Miranda of his right to an attorney and his right to remain silent to avoid self-incrimination prior to police interrogation, which is a violation of the Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The written confession was used by

Arizona was brought to the United States Supreme Court in 1966. The argument for the defense was that Miranda’s Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and Sixth Amendment Right to legal counsel were evidently violated. The State of Arizona ignored the Escobedo rule, decided by the United States Supreme Court in 1964, which states that a statement form a detained suspect in police custody is inadmissible in a court of law unless if the detained suspect is warned of the right to remain silent or the right to an opportunity to have an attorney present, and The Gideon rule, decided by the United States Supreme Court in 1963, which permits all suspects of felony the right to an attorney. Inclusive with these violations, Miranda’s confession was obtained illegally and should be dismissed. The verdict was inequitable, and Miranda should receive a new trial. However, the opposing counsel argued that Miranda was familiar to police procedures and willingly signed the written confession. Miranda’s conviction was consistent with Arizona law and his trial was