On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in his home and taken to Phoenix police station suspected of kidnapping and rape. On the station he was questioned by two police officers and after 2 hours of interrogating suspect signed a confession. On the statement it was typed that the confession was made voluntarily, without threats or promices of immunity and "with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me. This written confession was admitted into evidence dispite the objection of the defence councel and dispite the fact that the interrogating officers admitted at trial that E. Miranda was not advised of his right to have an attorney present during his interrogation.
Miranda was found quilty of kidnapping and rape and sentenced to 20 to 30 years inprisonment on each count, the sentences to run concurrently. The courts decision was appealed to the Supreme Court of Arizona, which found that Mirandas constitutional rights were not violated in obtaining the confession and affirmed the conviction, basing its decision on the fact that Miranda did not request councel.
United States Supreme Courts holding .
U. S. Supreme courts holding on the matter in brief was as follows:.
The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrocation of the defendant unless it is demonstrated, that procedural safequards effective to secure effective to secure the privilege against self incrimination. .
The statement indicates that the Supreme Court highlights the issue of self incrimination, the fifth amendment of U.S. Constitution and brings out its true meaning, points out its original aim, the aim which was not taken into account sufficiently by previous court decisions on that matter. .
As the defendents rights of self incrimination were not quaranteed, The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the case.
United States Supreme Courts reasoning.