Warren Court Ruling: Miranda V. Arizona

In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested for robbery, kidnapping and raping a young woman. After being arrested, Miranda was identified in a police line-up, interrogated by the officers, and signed a written confession without having a lawyer present. The case went to court and Miranda was found guilty with the damning evidence of his confession. Although he was declared guilty, Miranda appealed his case on the fact that he did not have a lawyer present or know his Fifth Amendment right, which protects against any confessions that could be used in a criminal prosecution or could lead to other evidence that might be used.

The case came before the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren in 1966 because it dealt with the rights of criminals, and the issue of the way poor people were being treated by the police was an issue of concern. The Supreme Court argued from late February to early March. On June 13, 1966, the Court ruled in favor of Miranda and overturned his conviction with a 5-4 vote. Chief Justice Warren stated that:

“The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to