Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

Before the 1960's, the rights of people were not favored by the Supreme Court's discretion. Many times, the Supreme Court would side with the police or government institutions. The 1960's became a time of freedom for the people. 

In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was taken into questioning by the police. He was one suspect of a kidnapping and rape case. After two long hours of questioning, Miranda wrote and signed a confession, which would later largely lead to his conviction in court. Miranda later appealed and claimed that his confession should be inadmissible in court. His arguments included the fact that he was coerced into his answers and the police never informed him of his right to an attorney and avoidance of self-incrimination. This case would later be named Miranda v. Arizona (1966). 

Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote the majority ruling of Miranda v. Arizona. He stated that, "no statement obtained from the defendant can truly be the product of his free choice." Miranda's confession would not be used as evidence in a court of law, because it was illegally obtained. Therefore, Justice Warren decided that the police must inform suspects of their rights at the time of the arrest. If the suspect decides to invoke his/her rights, the interrogation must cease. This mandatory relaying of rights is now called the Miranda Rights.

Though the Miranda decision was controversial, it has helped many suspected criminals who are still entitled to their rights. This ruling equalizes the powers of the people and the government. 

By: Shelly