Miranda vs. Arizona, 386 U.S.

436 (1966)
In the year of 1963 a man named Ernesto Miranda was charged with kidnap and
rape. He was interrogated by two or three officers for at least two hours until he made
his final plea. The case went to court and Miranda was sentenced to 20 years. Miranda
did not have a lawyer present before making his plea. He was found guilty by his
confession. It states that Miranda appealed his case because he did not know his Fifth
Amendment rights.
Since Miranda was not read his rights and made his plea without a lawyer
present, it made several issues with the court system. One issue is that he was not
given his Fifth Amendment rights. Another issue the court had was that the already
convicted criminals would want to go free because they were not read their rights.
The ruling of the court consisted of Miranda in prison after being trialed again.
The ruling did not consist of double jeopardy. The decision was defined form due
process of law under the Fourth Amendment. The suspect has to be read his rights. The
rights are, You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used
against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney, if you cannot afford a
lawyer one will be provided for you. If you decided to answer questions now, you can
stop at any time. Since the Ernesto Miranda trial, every suspect must be read his/her
rights before investigation starts.