What was the original case of Arizona v Miranda?

Answer 1

There were two trials, both titled State of Arizona v. Ernesto Miranda. Miranda was convicted of kidnapping and rape at his first trial and again on retrial.

In the appeal of the first trial (Miranda v. Arizona,(1966)), the US Supreme Court held that Miranda's constitutional rights had been violated, resulting in the first conviction being vacated and the case being remanded for retrial with Miranda's confession excluded as evidence.

Miranda was subsequently convicted at his second trial. The decision was affirmed by the Arizona Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court denied certiorari for his second petition, making the Arizona Supreme Court decision final.

Answer 2

Miranda v Arizona, 384 us 436 (1966)

Issue: Can incriminating statements by a suspect be considered admissible evidence if he/she was not informed of his/her rights?

Facts: On March 13, 1963, an Ernesto Miranda was arrested at his Arizona home. Miranda was immediately taken into questioning and the police were able to get a confession signed by him under a paragraph which held that the statement was voluntary and that Miranda had a "full knowledge of [his] legal rights, understanding any statement [he] [made] may be used against [him]." Miranda was convicted of kidnapping and rape on the grounds that he never specifically requested council. Miranda then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Decision: The Supreme Court ruled that based on the testimony and admission given, Miranda was obviously never informed of his right to council or to avoid self-incrimination. As a result, the Court reversed the decision and conviction.

Reasoning: The Supreme Court further explained that the process of interrogation is already intimidating, and the suspect must be read his rights to counteract this intimidation. Then the Court outlined the way in which a suspect must be informed of his rights. This must take place before the suspect is questioned, and an officer doesn't have to do it while placing someone under arrest as long as they don't interrogate the suspect in any way.

Significance: The Miranda Rights have revolutionized the handling of suspects. They are oftentimes held as critical to the due process of Americans; confusing or omitting even one word would be grounds for dismissal in any case.

Update

The Miranda ruling has been revised somewhat by subsequent Supreme Court decisions. On June 1, 2010, the Roberts' Court released the opinion for Berghuis v. Thompkins,08-1470 (2010), which held a defendant must invoke his right to remain silent (by stating he wants to remain silent), rather than waive it (by explicitly agreeing to answer questions before interrogation).
Clarified and re-defined self incrimination and questioning in the US of suspects in the US.