Miranda v. Arizona Imagine getting convicted of a crime and not have know your rights before the trial. Before 1963 most people were unaware of their rights as citizens. The fifth amendment protects defendants from being forced to become witnesses against themselves. The sixth amendment guarantees the right of an attorney. Without knowing these rights people would have less of a chance of winning the trial. The Miranda v. Arizona case helped people to understand their rights when dealing with the authorities. On March 13, 1963, a eighteen year old girl was rapes while walking to go home. A man named Ernesto Miranda was arrested in his house and brought to a police station. Miranda was questioned by the police for two hours(Facts and Case Summary). The Supreme Court stated that Miranda’s constitutional rights were not violated because he did not ask to hear them(Miranda v. Arizona). By not hearing all of his rights Miranda would not be able to successfully win the trial. Even though Miranda wrote his confession under the statement saying that he was completely aware of his rights, his lawyers argued that his rights were not fully explained to him. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 under Earl Warren. They agreed that Miranda’s confessions could not be used as evidence in the crime because …show more content…
They can be also called the Miranda warning but both were created after the trial. Nationwide, police departments began distributing index cards to their officers so that they could recite them to the suspects. The Miranda Warning reads, “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?”(History.com Staff). This helped many people while under