Bill of Rights Essay: Miranda v.

Arizona

The information given to the accused during an arrest and interrogation was
secured by the Miranda v. Arizona case.

Miranda v. Arizona involved Ernesto Miranda. In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was

arrested in Phoenix, Arizona. Miranda was arrested after he was charged with
kidnapping and rape. The victim was able to identify him in a police lineup with three
other Hispanics. While in police custody, he was interrogated for about two hours.
During the interrogation, Miranda asked the police officer questioning him whether or
not he had passed the identification in the lineup. The policeman lied and told him he
had “flunked”. (Trutv) While being questioned, Miranda was not notified of his Fifth
and Sixth Amendment rights. He was found guilty in court on the basis of a signed
confession which Miranda had signed during the questioning. The court sentenced
Ernesto Miranda twenty to thirty years in prison on each count. Miranda, with his
defense attorney, filed an appeal claiming the police had violated Miranda’s rights.
The appeal was then debated in the Arizona Supreme Court that sparked a battle
that would lead to a change in history regarding arrests and the information that
would be given to the accused. (Infoplease)

Miranda’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated in the case. The
police had violated his Fifth Amendment rights by not telling him he did not have to
confess to the crime and self-incriminate himself, which might have stopped Miranda
from confessing to the crime. According to the Constitution of the United States, the
Fifth Amendment states, that “No person…shall be compelled in any criminal case to
be a witness against himself…” His sixth amendment rights were violated when he
was not informed about receiving an attorney nor given an attorney during the
interrogation. The Sixth Amendment states, “In all criminal prosecutions, the
accused shall… have the assistance of counsel for his defense.” The police later
confessed to both violations claiming they had involuntarily violated Miranda’s Fifth
and Sixth amendment rights because they thought Miranda was familiar with his
rights. This was because he had been arrested, tried in court, and had been proven
guilty multiple times before. After the signed confession was presented to the court,
Miranda’s attorney stated that the confession violated the constitution and could not
be used in the trial. (Trutv)

After the case was brought to the United States Supreme Court, the
Supreme Court judges decided the confession was invalid and overruled the Arizona
Supreme Court decision based on the violation of Miranda’s Fifth and Sixth
Amendment by a five-four vote. They agreed to look at the earlier court decisions
and agreed to hear the arguments in the case. In the end, the Supreme Court ruled
in favor of Miranda, winning by only one vote with the end result being five-four.
They ruled, “Detained criminal suspects, prior to police questioning, must be
informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and against self-
incrimination.” (PBS) After the case was resolved, law enforcement agencies
introduced the Miranda Rights and made sure that all police officers inform the
accused of their rights. The rights are read during an arrest. The police read, “You
have the right to remain silent, anything you say can be used against you in a court
of law, You have the right to have an attorney present now and during any future
questioning, If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you free of
charge if you wish.” This means that whenever a person is accused of a crime, they
must be told their Constitutional rights prior to any questioning. (About)

The reason why police tell the accused their rights in the Fifth and Sixth
Amendments before questioning is because of the Miranda v. Arizona case.