1. Miranda v. Arizona
Matthew & Noah

2. Background
On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in his house and brought to the police station where he was questioned by police officers in connection with a kidnapping and rape. After two hours of interrogation, the police obtained a written confession from Miranda. The written confession was admitted into evidence at trial despite the objection of the defense attorney and the fact that the police officers admitted that they had not advised Miranda of his right to have an attorney present during the interrogation. The jury found Miranda guilty. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona affirmed and held that Miranda’s constitutional rights were not violated because he did not specifically request council.

3. Constitutional Question
The police violated Miranda’s 5th and 6th amendments. The 5th amendment states that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. The 6th amendment states the Miranda should have the right to a lawyer.

4. Supreme Court Ruling
In a 5-4 opinion, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Miranda. The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Earl Witten, concluded that defendants arrested under state law must be informed of their constitutional rights against self- incrimination and to be representation by an attorney before being interrogated when in police custody.

5. Result of Supreme Court’s decision
The precedent after this case were aby statements made by defendants during a custodial interrogation in which the defendant has not been read his “Miranda rights” are inadmissible n both state and federal courts.

6. Excerpt
…“[We] hold that an individual held for interrogation must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation under the system for protecting the privilege we delineate today…”