This infamous Supreme Court case of 1966 deals with the rights of the accused, mainly with the Fifth Amendment right to not incriminate one's self. Ernest Miranda, a Mexican-American in his mid twenties at the time, was living in Phoenix working for a produce company when he was accused of raping and kidnapping an eighteen year old woman. At the time, rape was one of the most popular crimes in Phoenix, and because the woman's description of her attacker fit Miranda's profile, he was arrested by Arizona police in his home and immediately taken to a local police station. Once there, Miranda was taken to an interrogation room, where he was questioned about the crimes. At first, Miranda pleaded his innocence, but after two hours of questioning, the police emerged from the room with a written and signed confession. At his trial, the written confession was admitted into evidence and Miranda was found guilty of the crime.
             The United States Supreme Court was then faced with Miranda's claim that the confession was self-incriminating and violated his Constitutional rights. The police admitted that at no time, either before or after the questioning had Miranda been informed of his right to consult an attorney before answering any questions, or his right to have an attorney present during the interrogation. The Supreme Court's job was to
             determine whether or not Miranda's Constitutional rights were breached. The Court ruled in favor of Miranda, 5 to 4, and stated that the questions answered during the interrogation must have been answered with the defendant's knowledge of his rights. This meant that a testimony was only legitimate if proper procedure was followed.
             The decision of the Miranda case has changed the policies and proceedings of the police force in the United States to this day. The Supreme Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment right is active outside of the courtroom and pr
             ...