Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
Ernesto Miranda was arrested at his home in Arizona and taken to the local police station, where he was questioned for two hours before confessing to crimes of rape and kidnapping. In a decision of 5-4, the Court held that an individual held for questioning must be clearly informed of their rights to talk with counsel and have a lawyer present during their interrogation. If a lawyer cannot be afforded then the court must appoint one for the defendant. Furthermore, information obtained from someone who has not been informed of his or her rights cannot be used against them. Nowadays, when someone is arrested, they are read their rights which go something like this: "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you. You have the right to have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford one, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand each and every one of these rights as they have been presented to you?"
Copyright © 1997 Jonathan Chin & Alan Stern