Miranda vs Arizona

By. Gursewak Rana

What exactly happened?

Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix due to circumstantial evidence that he had been involved in a kidnapping and rape. He confessed to the charges following a lengthy interrogation and signed a statement that said the confession was made knowingly and voluntarily. Miranda never was told of his right to remain silent, of his right to have a lawyer, or of the fact that any of his statements during the interrogation could be used against him in court. He objected to the introduction of the written copy of his confession into evidence at trial, stating that his ignorance of his rights made the confession involuntary. At trial, when prosecutors offered Miranda's written confession as evidence, his court appointed lawyer, Alvin Moore objected that because of these facts, the confession was not truly voluntary and should be excluded. Moore's objection was overruled and based on this confession and other evidence, Miranda was convicted of rape and kidnapping. He was sentenced to 20-30 years of imprisonment on each charge, with sentences to run concurrently. Moore filed Miranda's appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court, claiming that Miranda's confession was not fully voluntary.

Ernesto Miranda

Ernesto was a laborer whose conviction on kidnapping, rape, and armed robbery charges based on his confession under police interrogation was set aside in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case (Miranda v. Arizona), which ruled that criminal suspects must be informed of their right against self-incrimination and their right to consult with an attorney before being questioned by police. This warning is known as a Miranda Warning. After the Supreme Court decision set aside Miranda's initial conviction, the state of Arizona retried him. At the second trial, with his confession excluded from evidence, he was again convicted.

Born: March 9, 1941
Mesa, Arizona

Died: January 31, 1976 (aged 34)
Phoenix, Arizona

Cause of death:


Resting place:

City of Mesa Cemetery

Occupation: Laborer

Known for: Miranda Rights

Criminal charge

Kidnapping and Rape

Criminal status: Convicted


It was the most television-friendly of the Supreme Court cases. It also dealt with the 5th amendment which is in the constitution. It was the most television-friendly of the Supreme Court cases. It also dealt with the 5th amendment which is in the constitution. This decision made by the Supreme Court was very controversial at the time of its ruling because many people believed that the ruling would allow more criminals to go free because of courtroom technicalities. Many other important cases followed the Miranda decision, which still remains a controversial topic today. Several cases followed Miranda versus Arizona in which defendants made incriminating statements to police without being told their Miranda rights.

Background on Earl Warren

Background information on the Chief Justice Earl Warren was that he was born in Los Angeles, on March 19, 1891, to Methias H. Warren, a Norwegian immigrant whose original family name was Varren, [3] and Crystal (Hernlund), a Swedish immigrant. March 19, 189. He was an American jurist and politician, who served as the 30th Governor of California from (1943–1953) and later served as the 14th Chief Justice of the United States from (1953–1969). He is best known probably for the decisions of the Warren Court, which ended school segregation and transformed many areas of American law, especially regarding the rights of the accused, ending public school-sponsored prayers, and requiring "one man–one vote" rules of apportionment of Congressional, state and local legislative districts. Some of these were very controversial to the people. The Warren Court expanded civil rights, civil liberties, judicial power, and the federal power in dramatic ways. The court was both applauded and criticized for bringing an end to racial segregation in the United States, which was soon included in the Bill of Rights. He made the Supreme Court a power center on a basis with Congress and the Presidency, especially through four landmark decisions: Brown v. Board of Education (1954), Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), Reynolds v. Sims (1964), and Miranda v. Arizona (1966). Warren was the nominee of the Republican Party for Vice President in 1948, as the running mate of Thomas E. Dewey. He was appointed to chair what became known as the Warren Commission, which was formed to investigate the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy. He served in the United States Army from 1917-1918. Warren was a Republican in his time. He was a very respected person in his time and was very influential.


This is Historical because it had to deal with a previous event in history. It's not in the present. This is also cultural criticism because it deals with the society as a whole not an individual.


In an article I read on PBS's website I found the bias of Alex McBride in which he said," Ernesto Miranda, whose wrongful conviction led to the landmark case Miranda v. Arizona, in which the Court held that detained criminal suspects must be informed of their rights prior to police questioning."


The media thought his conviction was faulty, and he deserved a new trial. Although in some people's eyes he had broken the law. Ernesto Miranda was no stranger to police procedures.
He negotiated with police officers with intelligence and understanding.
He signed the confession willingly. The prosecution was proper, his conviction based on Arizona law, and his imprisonment was justified.