Title: How It All Began: <i>Miranda v. Arizona</i> - Patrol - POLICE Magazine
Headings: How It All Began: <i>Miranda v. Arizona</i>
Resource Center
Latest Industry Updates and Videos
Education Center
Upcoming and On-Demand Webinars
Patrol
How It All Began: <i>Miranda v. Arizona</i>
Related:
0 Comments

Content: In 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed the confession and the officer's testimony. Miranda's confession was written on pages that contained the words, "this confession was made with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me." Despite this, it was clear that Miranda had never been verbally advised of his right to counsel or his right to have a lawyer present during his questioning. The police never told Miranda of his right to not be compelled to incriminate himself. The Supreme Court decided in a 5-4 ruling that without these warnings all statements Miranda made were presumed to have been compelled by the inherently coercive atmosphere of custodial interrogation, and the statements were therefore inadmissible under the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court went on to say that the very nature of a custodial police interrogation is intimidating and a suspect must be advised of his rights to counterbalance this intimidation. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case for re-trial. Ernesto Miranda was retried for the crimes. The confession was not admitted into evidence. And it didn't matter;