Ernesto Miranda was 23 when he kidnapped and raped a woman. He was interrogated for 2 hours and he wrote and confessed that he did it. He was sentenced in prison for 20-30 years. The supreme court of Arizona realized that he did not get his rights to remain silent. They trialed him again and was still found guilty.
Argument for the petitioner
They violated my rights to remain silent and the right to a counsel
The questions that the interrogators used are some of the following: What happened? Where were you when this alleged incident happened? Do you have any witnesses who can collaborate your whereabouts at the time of the incident?
Argument for the respondent
The fifth amendment and the six apply to this case. the fifth amendment applies because they did not state his rights. The sixth amendment applies because they did not give him a counsel(lawyer).
Fifth Amendment and Sixth
The police violated Miranda's 5th Amendment right to remain silent, and his 6th Amendment right to legal counsel. His confession was illegally obtained and should be thrown out. His conviction was faulty, and he deserved a new trial.
Ernesto Miranda was no stranger to police procedures. He negotiated with police officers with intelligence. He signed the confession willingly. The prosecution was proper, his conviction was based on Arizona law, and his imprisonment was just. The Supreme Court should uphold his conviction and should not further cripple the work of the police.
He kidnapped me and raped me when I was coming back from work