Cailin Frusti

Criminal Investigation
30 September 2014
Miranda vs. Arizona
On March 9, 1941, Ernesto Miranda was born in Mesa, Arizona. At the age of six,
Miranda lost his mother and his father shortly remarried. Growing up, he was never able to get
along with brothers, father, or stepmother. In the eighth grade, Ernesto was found guilty of his
first crime, burglary. Within a year of being convicted, he dropped out of school and continued to
commit various crimes. A year later, Miranda was found guilty once again for burglary and was
sentenced to one year at reform school, and then another two years when he was found guilty of
attempted rape and assault. At age eighteen, Ernesto enlisted in the United States Army. He spent
fifteen months enlisted in the army, and six of those fifteen months were spent doing physical
labor as a form of punishment for acts he committed while enlisted, such as disappearing for
long lengths of time as well as spying on people. After being discharged from the army, Miranda
continued to partake in criminal activities and was sentenced to a year in federal prison. When
Ernesto Miranda was twenty-one, he was released from prison and formed a relationship with
Twila Hoffman, who would soon become his common-law wife. Together they had a daughter
and Miranda began working at a loading dock.
On March 12, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested for the rape and kidnapping of an
eighteen year old woman. After his arrest, he was taken to the local police department for
questioning. Miranda gave them a written statement confessing what he did and stated that he
was aware of his legal rights and that the confession he had just written would be used against
him. At his trial, Mirandas defense attorney attempted to persuade the judge not to allow the jury
to see his written confession because there was no evidence that showed that Miranda was ever
informed he had the right to an attorney or that he was not obligated to talk to the officers. The
attorneys pleads failed and the judge overruled his objection. Being allowed to view the written
confession written by Ernesto Miranda, the jury found him guilty of both kidnapping and rape.
Miranda was sentenced to twenty to thirty years for each charge. In June 1965, after spending
two years in prison, Miranda sent a petition to the Supreme Court to review his case, but it was
denied. A group of three lawyers took on his case and sent their appeal to the Supreme Court, and
this time, they agreed to review his case. With a vote of five to four in Mirandas favor, the
Supreme Court ruled that his rights under the Fifth Amendment had been violated. The Fifth
Amendment protects against self-incrimination, and since Miranda had not been informed of his
right to an attorney or of his right to remain silent, his Fifth Amendment rights were violated.
The court system tried his case again, without the written confession, and his sentence was
shortened to just eleven years in prison.
After the Supreme Court ruling in 1966, the Miranda Rights were established. The
purpose of establishing it was to protect the rights guaranteed under the Fifth Amendment. By
reciting the Miranda Rights upon arresting a person, the suspect is reminded of their right to
remain silent to protect themselves from self-incrimination. This is the reason why Ernesto
Mirandas name is present on virtually every police interrogation or interview. Officers are
required to recite the Miranda Rights to the suspects they arrest, and therefore, Mirandas name
appears during each individual interview or interrogation.
The Exclusionary Rule was created to give the judicial branch the power to check the
executive branch. Under this rule, it prohibits the use of evidence that was gathered illegally.
This connects to the Miranda case because the written confession was used in court even though
it was obtained by violating his rights protected by the Fifth Amendment. Some people argue that
this rule should be more strongly enforced. They argue this because it helps protects the rights
guaranteed to us under the Bill of Rights. However, other people argue that the Exclusionary
Rule should be more lenient, not tougher. They believe that even though the information was
obtained illegally, it should still be allowed to be used in court because essentially, it helps find
the criminal and incriminate them.
 Works Cited
Ernesto Miranda." Ernesto Miranda. N.p., 15 July 2012. Web. 28 Sept. 2014.
Exclusionary Rule." Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School, n.d. Web. 28
Sept. 2014.
McBride, Alex. "Miranda v. Arizona." The Supreme Court. PBS, n.d. Web. 29 Sept. 2014.
"Miranda and the Exclusionary Rule." Miranda and the Exclusionary Rule. Street Law, Inc., n.d.
Web. 29 Sept. 2014.
Montaldo, Charles. "Miranda Rights and Warning." About News. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Sept. 2014.