THE 1960s brought significant expansion of the constitutional rights of criminal defendants. The crucial moment that set these changes in motion was the famous case of Miranda v. Arizona, in which the US Supreme Court laid down new rules for interrogating criminal suspects.
The year was 1963. A young woman in Phoenix, Arizona, was forced into a 1953 Packard vehicle, driven into the desert and raped. Eleven days later, a man named Ernesto Miranda was arrested by the police. They traced the car to Miranda through a license plate the victim's brother had recognized. Following a two-hour interrogation at the police station, Miranda confessed to the charges of kidnapping and rape. He was not offered a chance to consult with an attorney. During Miranda's trial, the only evidence presented by the state was his confession. After receiving a 21-year prison sentence, Miranda appealed to the (Federal) Supreme Court. There, he argued that his confession violated, among others, the 6th Amendment guarantee of "the assistance of counsel" for accused individuals.
Continue reading with one of these options:
Ad-free access
P 80 per month
(billed annually at P 960)
- Unlimited ad-free access to website articles
- Limited offer: Subscribe today and get digital edition access for free (accessible with up to 3 devices)