There are several cases that expand on the subject matter of the Miranda v. Arizona case. One such case is the Vignera v. New York, which revolved around a robbery at a dress shop. In this particular case, “Michael Vignera confessed to a robbery, but he was never told of his right to have an attorney present.” The judge in Vignera v. New York ruled that the confession made by Michael Vignera was still valid irrespective of the fact that it was made when the perceived offender had not been told of his rights as contained in the Miranda warning. Specifically, the judge found Michael Vignera guilty of first-degree robbery and sentenced the offender to 30-60 years imprisonment even without considering the fact that the offender had not been told of his rights when the police picked him up for interrogation.
The Vignera v. New York case supports the Miranda case in terms of demonstrating the importance of law enforcement officers to ensure that suspected offenders know of their rights before being exposed to arrests or interrogations. It underscores the importance of administering the Miranda warnings to offenders so that they may know about their inalienable rights guaranteed under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. As happened in Vignera v. New York where the Supreme Court invalidated the conviction of Michael Vignera based on the fact that the offender was not given any warnings, police and prosecutors in the criminal justice system could end up losing court cases if it is established beyond any reasonable doubt that the arresting or interrogating agencies failed to notify offenders of their rights, freedoms, and privileges.