t thestatement was made voluntarily without threats or promises of immunity and that he hadfull knowledge of his rights and understood that the statement could be used against him.Ultimately, the Supreme Court reversed Miranda's conviction and ordered that theconfession in the rape case be suppressed. The Court ruled that "an individual held forinterrogation must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer andhave the lawyer with him during inter-rogation...[that he has] the right to remain silent andthat anything stated can be used in evidence against him...that if he is indigent a lawyerwill be appointed to represent him" (US Suprime Court). The Court reasoned that allcustodial police interrogations are inherently coercive and could never result in a voluntarystatement in the absence of a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of the rightsenumerated in the Miranda warnings.Under Miranda, the Supreme Court established an irrebuttable presumption that astatement is involuntary if it is taken during custodial interrogation without a waiver of theso-called Miranda warnings. A statement taken in violation of Miranda would result in thesuppression of the statement, even though the statement was otherwise voluntary and notthe result of coercion of any kind. In fact, in the Miranda decision, the Supreme Courtacknowledged that Ernesto Miranda was not subjected to any coercion that would renderhis statement involuntary in traditional terms. The Miranda requirements apply only whena suspect is both in custody and subjected to interrogation. For purposes of Miranda,"custody" is defined as an arrest or significant deprivation of freedom equivalent to anarrest. "Interrogation," under Miranda, is defined as words or actions likely to elicit anincriminating response from an average suspect (Hogrogian, 90). If the suspect asserts theright to silence, an officer must honor the suspect's assertion and stop the interrogat...
