S. Supreme Court handed down its landmark decision in Mirandav. Arizona. The Miranda decision was a departure from the established law in the area ofpolice interrogation. Prior to Miranda, a confession would be suppressed only if a courtdetermined it resulted from some actual coercion, threat, or promise. The Mirandadecision was intended to protect suspects of their 5th Amendment right of noself-incrimination. The verdict of Miranda v. Arizona is an efficient way of informingcriminal suspects of their rights established by the Constitution, allowing un-Constitutionalconfessions to be nullinvoid in the court of law. However, it does not enforce it wellenough. For example, a statement taken in violation of Miranda can be used forimpeachment purposes and deciding whether evidence derived from a Miranda violation isadmissible. Also, Miranda applies to undercover police interrogation and prior to routinebooking questions, protecting all suspect in American custody to be aware of their rights.Next, it says that police may not continue to interrogate a suspect after he makes a requestfor a lawyer. At approximately 8:30 p.m. on November 27, 1962, a young woman left the FirstNational Bank of Arizona after attending night classes. A male suspect robbed the woman 1of $8 at knife-point after forcing his way into her car. Four months later, the same suspectabducted an 18-year-old girl at knife-point and, after tying her hands and feet, drove to asecluded area of the desert and raped her. On March 13, 1963, police arrested23-year-old Ernesto Arthur Miranda as a suspect in the two crimes. Miranda had a priorarrest record for armed robbery and a juvenile record for, among other things, attemptedrape, assault, and burglary. Both victims viewed corporeal lineups and identified Mirandaas their attacker. The police questioned Miranda, and he confessed to both crimes. Hesigned a confession to the rape that included a typed paragraph explaining tha...
