On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested by the Phoenix Police Department in Arizona for the crime of raping and kidnapping an eighteen year old girl. After two hours of interrogation, Miranda confessed to the crime and was required, by the arresting agency, to give a written confession. In it, he also signs an oath that states that he understood that he retained the rights during his interrogation. During the trial, Miranda’s court appointed lawyer, Alvin Moore, objected that his confession was not fully voluntary and that the confession should not be used as evidence. Moore’s objection was overruled, and Miranda was later sentenced to twenty-five to thirty years in prison on both charges. However, Miranda and his attorney decided to make an appeal the Arizona Supreme Court on the concept of the Fifth and Sixth Amendment. Again, the court rejected their appeal with the …show more content…
Supreme Court in 1965 and, again, argued that his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated. The Chief Justice at the time was Earl Warren, who previously held the position as a state prosecutor and governor of California, and he made the following arguments that ultimately led to the five-to-four decision on the hearing: despite the constitutional wording of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, state law enforcement agencies are “breaking the spirit” of the constitution by not informing the accused of their rights. Along with that, Warren also points out (at the time) that the police guidelines for interrogation had been including instruction that involved coercing suspect and that the F.B.I. and U.S. Military’s Uniform Code of Military Justice had already been practicing the protocol of informing the accused of their rights. Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s decision allowed for Miranda’s original confession to be thrown out and required that all law enforcement agencies inform accused individuals of their Fifth and Sixth Amendment