Miranda V State Of Arizona Essay

On March 3, 1963, in Phoenix, Arizona, Lois Ann Jameson, an 18 year old woman, was attacked on her way home from her night job. The attacker not only yanked her into his car, but also drove out to the desert and raped her. Afterwards, she got dropped off near her house. On March 13, Ernesto Miranda was apprehended in his house and brought to the police station to be investigated for rape and kidnapping. Within two hours, he signed a confession stating that he was the one that committed the crimes without knowing his full rights. Although Miranda declared that the police has promised him leniency and threatened him, the police denied. After the confession, the victim was brought in front of Miranda, and he proclaimed that she was the one that he had raped. In the trial of Miranda, the defendant, against the State of Arizona, the prosecution, the confession was used as evidence even though Miranda’s defense attorney had an objection and the police did not inform him of his rights before the questioning. He was found guilty for the kidnapping and rapping of Lois Ann Jameson and obtained a sentence of 20-30 years of prison. His conviction was supported by the Arizona Supreme Court stating that he did not ask for a counsel nor did the police force him to …show more content…
When a law enforcer, such as a police officer, interrogate a suspect, they must inform the suspect about their constitutional rights beforehand. These rights include the right to remain silent and not answer questions, the right to consult an attorney before and during the interrogation, an attorney can be appointed even if one cannot afford it, and that everything the suspect do or say will be used against them in court. Miranda rights are important not only due to the fact that it will protect one’s right against self-incrimination, but it also guarantees that the information that investigators have gathered are legally