The Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v.
Arizona addressed four different cases involving many
interrogations. In each of these cases, the defendant was questioned by
police officers, detectives, or a prosecuting attorney in a room in which he
was cut off from the outside world. In none of these cases was the
defendant given a full and effective warning of his rights at the outset of the
interrogation process. In all the cases, the questioning elicited oral
admissions and, in three of them, signed statements that were admitted at
trial. Miranda was arrested at his home and taken in custody to a police station where
he was identified by the complaining witness. He was then interrogated by
two police officers for two hours, after that Miranda wrote a confession letter. At trial, the oral and written confessions were presented to
the jury. Miranda was found guilty of kidnapping and rape and was
sentenced to 20-30 years imprisonment on each count. On appeal, the
Supreme Court of Arizona held that Miranda’s constitutional rights were not
violated in obtaining the confession. In Miranda, the U.S. Supreme Court declared a set of specific rights for
criminal defendants. The Miranda warning, named after Ernesto Miranda,
one of the petitioners in the case, is a list of rights that a law enforcement
officer must read to anyone arrested for a criminal act. The officers did not tell Miranda that he had a right to an attorney, and
Miranda confessed to the crime in two hours. Miranda wrote a confession on a
piece of paper and signed the paper. At the top of the paper was a typed
statement saying that Miranda had made the confession voluntarily and with full
knowledge of his legal rights. Miranda was convicted of rape and kidnapping in an Arizona state court. The
circumstances involving the other three defendants were similar, all three
confessing after a period of custodial interrogation without the assistance of
legal counsel.
Arizona addressed four different cases involving many
interrogations. In each of these cases, the defendant was questioned by
police officers, detectives, or a prosecuting attorney in a room in which he
was cut off from the outside world. In none of these cases was the
defendant given a full and effective warning of his rights at the outset of the
interrogation process. In all the cases, the questioning elicited oral
admissions and, in three of them, signed statements that were admitted at
trial. Miranda was arrested at his home and taken in custody to a police station where
he was identified by the complaining witness. He was then interrogated by
two police officers for two hours, after that Miranda wrote a confession letter. At trial, the oral and written confessions were presented to
the jury. Miranda was found guilty of kidnapping and rape and was
sentenced to 20-30 years imprisonment on each count. On appeal, the
Supreme Court of Arizona held that Miranda’s constitutional rights were not
violated in obtaining the confession. In Miranda, the U.S. Supreme Court declared a set of specific rights for
criminal defendants. The Miranda warning, named after Ernesto Miranda,
one of the petitioners in the case, is a list of rights that a law enforcement
officer must read to anyone arrested for a criminal act. The officers did not tell Miranda that he had a right to an attorney, and
Miranda confessed to the crime in two hours. Miranda wrote a confession on a
piece of paper and signed the paper. At the top of the paper was a typed
statement saying that Miranda had made the confession voluntarily and with full
knowledge of his legal rights. Miranda was convicted of rape and kidnapping in an Arizona state court. The
circumstances involving the other three defendants were similar, all three
confessing after a period of custodial interrogation without the assistance of
legal counsel.