This case represents the merging of four cases, in each of which the defendant gave a guilty confession after being subjected to an assortment of interrogation techniques without being informed of his Fifth Amendment rights during an interrogation.
The most prominent one, that went to the supreme court, is the case with Mr. Miranda. On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested and brought to the police station where he was questioned by police officers in connection with a kidnapping and rape. although Mr. Miranda was not aware of his rights, he signed a confession after two hours of investigation.
The signed statement included a statement that Mr. Miranda was aware of his rights. The written confession was admitted into evidence at trial despite the objection of Mirandas defense attorney and the fact that the officers admitted that they had not advised Miranda of his right to have an attorney present during the interrogation.
The other three defendants consolidated into this case besides Miranda was Michael Vignera, who was arrested for burglary and was held in imprisonment for eight hours before he made a confession to an assistant district attorney. There was no evidence that he was notified of his Fifth Amendment rights. The third Defendant, Carl Calvin Westover who was arrested for two counts of robbery. He was questioned over fourteen hours by local police, and then was handed to FBI agents, who were able to get signed confessions from him without informing him of his rights. The fourth Defendant, Roy Allen Stewart was arrested for a series of purse snatchings and after nine interrogations, Mr. Stewart admitted to the crimes without being informed of his 5th amendment rights. In the case of Espinosa Maranda, the jury of the district court found Miranda guilty.
On appeal to the Supreme Court of Arizona affirmed and held that Miranda’s constitutional rights were not violated because he did not specifically request counsel. The case was then appealed to the supreme court. The main issue is that if the government is required to notify the arrested defendants of their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination before they interrogate them? The court ruled in favor of Miranda in a 5-4 decision by justice Warren. The court ruled that the government is required to notify arrested defendants of their Fifth Amendment constitutional rights.
The prosecution may not use statements coming from a custodial interrogation of a suspect unless certain procedural safeguards were in place. They specifically list rights such as: their right to remain silent, an explanation that anything they say could be used in court, their right to counsel, and their right to have counsel appointed to represent them. The Court held that in all the cases, the interrogation techniques used by law enforcement did not technically fall into the category of coercive, but they failed to ensure that the defendant’s decision to speak with the police was entirely the product of their own free will From this case the Miranda warning was developed. The Miranda warning is required to be used by all law enforcement agencies across the United States. This warning is required to be read to all suspects who are going to be asked questions about a crime that they are being investigated for. The warning consists of all the rights that were mentioned in the ruling. These rights include “the right to remain silent, everything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law, Etc.
” this ruling changed the landscape of law enforcement and made it so that suspects were now aware of their rights that they have under the constitution. It gave options to those who don’t have the means to defend themselves in court and gave them the best chance to prove their innocence. In conclusion Mr. Miranda and others gave a confession to law enforcement without being informed of their connotational rights. The court then ruled that suspects are required to be informed of their rights before being subject to a custodial interrogation.