As one of the most celebrated court cases, this started when Ernesto Arturo Miranda was arrested for the kidnapping and rape of an 18-year-old woman. He later confessed to the robbery and attempted rape under interrogation by police. At trial, prosecutors offered not only his confession as evidence (over objection) but also the victim’s positive identification of Miranda as her assailant. Miranda was convicted of rape and kidnapping and sentenced to 20 to 30 years imprisonment on each charge, with sentences to run concurrently. Miranda’s court-appointed lawyer appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, which affirmed the trial court’s decision. In affirming, the Arizona Supreme Court emphasized heavily the fact that Miranda did not specifically request. Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered the opinion of the court, ruling that due to the coercive nature of custodial interrogation by police, no confession could be admissible under the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination clause and Sixth Amendment right to an attorney unless a suspect had been made aware of his rights and the suspect had then waived them.
Thus, Miranda’s conviction was overturned. However, Miranda was retried, and this time the prosecution did not use the confession but called witnesses and used other evidence. Miranda was convicted, and he served 11 years. This case was the basis for Miranda rights that the police should inform a suspected criminal about his or her rights whenever arrested. In April 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments that reading the Miranda warning should no longer be required because it interferes with police officers’ efforts to gain evidence necessary for a criminal conviction of the guilty.