In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was accused of kidnapping and raping a woman when she was walking home from work in Phoenix, Arizona. Ernesto Miranda was arrested and asked a series of questions about the incident. He was questioned for two hours by the police until he confessed to his crimes. The police had unconstitutionally obtained Miranda’s confession. While Ernesto was being questioned he was not informed of the fifth amendment which protects one from being held accountable for committing a crime without being properly informed of one’s rights, and sixth amendment that promises citizens a speedy trial, a fair jury, and an attorney. Miranda’s signed confession included the statement that he was informed of his rights, when in fact he was not. …show more content…
Miranda’s attorney then requested the Arizona Supreme Court to uphold Ernesto’s conviction. The Supreme Court approved to hear the case of Miranda v Arizona again along with three other cases (Miranda v. Arizona Podcast). The four cases together would clear up any confusion from the Escobedo v Illinois trial that remained. In the first trial Ernesto Miranda did not have a lawyer. The police had unconstitutionally obtained his confession. The police had Ernesto Miranda write out his confession of rape and kidnapping. They did this before informing Miranda about having his lawyer present or having the right to remain silent. Ernesto's written confession was then used against him at his trial (Miranda v. Arizona | Law Case). The signed confession was acquired without warning because of this he self incriminated himself. Ernesto’s signed confession was overruled and he was sentenced to twenty years in prison