The Miranda Warnings

1011 Words4 Pages
Miranda Warnings The so-called Miranda warnings were developed in response to the Supreme Court's decision in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Many people believe that this landmark decision invented the rights that are in the Miranda warning. It did not. The rights that are included in the Miranda warning are guaranteed in the Constitution. Furthermore, "the e foundations for Miranda v. Arizona (1966) were laid in Malloy v. Hogan (1964) which applied the privilege against self-incrimination to state criminal proceedings and Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) which allowed consultation with an attorney about the privilege against self-incrimination" (Anonymous, 2004). However, prior to this decision, law enforcement officials did not have to ensure that criminal suspects were aware of their rights prior to engaging in an interrogation. In the underlying case, Ernesto Miranda was arrested for the kidnapping and rape of a woman. After two hours of police interrogation, he signed a written confession. Miranda was never informed of his right to council, his right to remain silent, or of the fact that statements he made could be used against him. Miranda's attorney attempted to have his confession excluded at trial, but the trial court allowed the confession and Miranda was subsequently convicted of rape and kidnapping. Miranda appealed the decision to the Arizona Supreme Court, which affirmed, based on the notion that Miranda had not sought out an attorney. The U.S.
Open Document