The "Miranda rule," which makes a confession inadmissible in a criminal trial if the accused was not properly advised of his rights, has been so thoroughly integrated into the justice system that any child who watches television can recite the words: "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" Yet the 1966 Supreme Court ruling in Miranda v. Arizona remains the subject of often heated debate, and has had a great impact on law enforcement in the U.S.
On March 13, 1963, eight dollars in cash was stolen from a Phoenix, Arizona bank worker, Police suspected and arrested Ernesto Miranda for committing the theft. Eleven days earlier, an 18- year old woman was kidnapped and raped in Phoenix, Arizona. The police investigated the case but didn't have any leads as to a suspect.
During two hours of questioning Ernesto Miranda on the theft charge, without never being offered a lawyer, he confessed not only to the eight dollars theft, but also to kidnapping and raping an eighteen year old woman eleven days earlier. The police arrested the poor, and mentally disturbed man. This case would become well known in American constitutional studies. Miranda was 23 years old when he was arrested. By confessing to the crime, Miranda was convicted for kidnapping and rape and sentenced to twenty years in prison.
However, when Miranda was arrested he was not told his rights that are stated in amendment number five. On appeal, Miranda's lawyers pointed out that the police had never told him that he had the right to be represented by a lawyer, and that he could remain silent if he wished to do so. In addition, he was...