6. Miranda v. Arizona has become an integral and famous aspect of the American legal system in the decades since
On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested by the Phoenix Police Department after circumstantial evidence connected him to the kidnapping and rape of an eighteen-year-old woman ten days prior. Following two hours of interrogation, during which time no attorney was present, Miranda signed a confession including a statement that he was fully aware of his rights. However, throughout the process Miranda had never been informed he possessed the right to legal counsel, nor was he advised of the right to remain silent or that his statements during interrogation could be used against him in court.
Convicted and sentenced to twenty to thirty years in prison, Miranda’s trial lawyer, Alvin Moore, appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court on grounds his confession was not voluntary as it was made whilst unaware of his rights and thus should have been inadmissible. Denied, the United States Supreme Court took up the case. Ruling 5-4, the court reasoned that no confession could be admissible under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments unless a suspect had been made fully aware of their rights. Overturning Miranda’s conviction, the court stipulated the now-famous “Miranda rights” that must be read to a suspect and commanded that interrogations must cease upon the request for an attorney.