The case of Miranda v

The case of Miranda v. Arizona discusses the 5th amendment rights for a person to speak to their lawyer during interrogation and to remain silent. This case also deals with the responsibility of law enforcement to inform the person being interrogated of their rights during the interrogation, and that anything they say can be used as evidence in court. Ernesto Miranda was the defendant in the original court case and was being charged with kidnapping and rape. During his interrogation, he was not informed of his rights and admitted to his guilt. Miranda then stated in court that his statement should not be used as evidence because he was unaware of his rights, but he was still convicted. Miranda then appealed his case stating he should not be convicted because his statement was not made voluntarily. The jury agreed that Ernesto Miranda should be given another trial because the 6th amendment right to counsel should apply to interrogation as well. This case set the precedent that during an interrogation, the person being interrogated must be informed of their “Miranda rights” for the evidence gathered through that interrogation to be admissible in court.