Miranda Rights

The plaintiff was the state of Arizona trying to convict Miranda on kidnapping and rape charges. When the case reached the Supreme Court the prosecution was told not to use the information used in the interrogation room, and that Miranda had given information that he may not of, if the police did not use some tactics that they used (i.e. not telling Miranda his rights).
             The Miranda case solely dealt with the first ten Amendments, (or the so called "bill of rights" amendments). According to Amendment number five anyone including foreigners arrested in the United States has certain rights and privileges that should be spelled out for them at the time of the arrest. These rights are designed to ensure that everyone has the right to due process of the law that states that a person's rights, liberty, and property cannot be violated without a proper trial. Note that if any of the five points listed in amendment number five are violated, the accused cannot be sentenced. These rights have to be described for the accused person in time of arrest. After the trail the Fifth Amendment rights were given the nickname commonly used "the Miranda Rights".
             Miranda v. Arizona was brought to the US Supreme Court because of the fact that the outcome would have an affect on the whole system of arrest. Also the violation of the Fifth Amendment was on trail, on such a decision only could be made by the highest court in the country, the United States Supreme Court. The whole case was undergoing too many different factors, and the fact that the original case had been called back because of the new question and statements that were made, the Supreme Court had to deal with it.
             The plaintiff had argued and brought to the court information from the integration room, while Miranda was under police custody. They stated that Miranda had confessed to the charges pressed against him. The prosecution's argument mainly focused on the confessing of Miranda while under police custody.