Miranda vs. Arizona: This case had to do with an Ernest Miranda who raped a Patty McGee. After extracting a written confession from the rapist about the situation, Miranda's lawyer argued that it was not valid since the Phoenix Police Department failed to read Miranda his rights, also in violation of the Sixth Amendment which is the right to counsel. Some factors that helped support Miranda's arguments were that the suspect had requested and been denied an opportunity to consult with a lawyer; the suspect had not been effectively warned about his right to remain silent; and an incriminating statement must have been given by the suspect. The author of the Arizona court's decision, former U.S. Senator and Arizona governor Ernest W. McFarland, said that Miranda had not requested a lawyer at the time of his detention and therefore was not entitled to the protections offered by such thins as in the Escobedo vs. Illinois case. Two months after the nation's highest court agreed to hear arguments in the case of Miranda vs. Arizona, John Flynn and John Frank submitted their outline of the case and legal arguments in support of their position.
They continued their argument that Ernest Miranda's Sixth Amendment right to counsel had been violated by the Phoenix Police Department: "The day is here to recognize the full meaning of the Sixth Amendment", they wrote. "We invoke the basic principles (that) 'he requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him. ' When Miranda stepped into Interrogation Room 2, he had only the guiding hand of Officers Cooley and Young". Because of the four other cases tied to Miranda and the large number of amicus briefs filed in the case, a second day of oral arguments followed on March 1. That day, the justices honed in on the Fifth Amendment aspects of the case, which pleased John Flynn to no end.
The last man to present a position in the case before the court was Thurgood Marshall, whose personal opinions were diametrically opposed to the position of his employer, the U.S. government. Once the arguments were done, there was nothing left to do but wait as the justices debated the issue among themselves and issued a written opinion, probably in four or five months. The traditional process called for the justices to listen to oral arguments on Monday through Thursday, then to take preliminary votes and assign opinion author ships during a private meeting - again attended only by the justices - on Friday. Based on the political makeup of the Supreme Court in the spring of 1966, it was widely speculated that a majority would come down in some form on the side of Ernest Miranda. In the decision, Flynn, Frank and especially Ernest Miranda won hands-down.
"The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way, unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination", Warren wrote, creating the now-famous "Miranda Warning". From this point on, the court decision required, law enforcement officials would have to ensure that detainees have been briefed on and understand their Constitutional rights. Police departments around the country started to inform suspects they have the right to remain silent, anything they say can and will be used against them, that they have the right to an attorney and if they cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided free of charge. sources provided by: web murders / not guilty / miranda /8. html? sect = 14.