How Miranda V. Arizona Changed American History

1606 Words 7 Pages
Revelations without Justice

Miranda v. Arizona is a case that changed American history. Because of this case officers were obligated to exercise the defendant’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights with no hesitations. In 1955, Ernesto Miranda was convicted to serve a term of thirty years in the Arizona State Prison Farm for the raping and assault of 18-year-old Rebecca Ann Johnson. During his arrest Miranda was taken into custody and was never told that he had the right to an attorney, the right to remain silent, and that anything he said could and would be used against him in a court of law. Because of this, the Fifth and Sixth Amendments were enforced during every arrest. Ernesto Miranda was retried and later convicted without the admission
…show more content…
He was placed in a lineup and identified as the alleged rapist by Rebecca Ann Johnson. Later, he was taken into questioning not being told that he had the right to an attorney or the right to remain silent before being interrogated (Riley 41). Miranda was asked various questions, answering each and every one of them without any concern. He was ignorant to the sequence of events that were going to unravel next.

During June of 1963, the trial of The State of Arizona v. Ernesto Miranda commenced (Riley 42). During trial, Miranda explained “I didn’t know whether I had a choice. I got in the car and asked them what it was about. They said they couldn’t tell me anything” (qtd. in Miranda v. Arizona: Rights of the Accused 41).One can argue that the officers lured him into giving a false testimony and since Miranda was not aware that he could remain silent he answered to them. According to the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, it states that people have the right to self-incrimination or the right to remain silent. The Sixth Amendment states that the accused have the right to an attorney during interrogation. As the trial went on, prosecutors offered Miranda’s confession as evidence and his lawyer, Alvin Moore, objected stating that “the Supreme Court of the

Related Documents