At the time, Miranda was 23 years old, indigent, and had not completed ninth grade. At the beginning of the interrogation, Miranda expressed his innocence. After about two hours of interrogation the police emerged with Miranda's signed confession to the crimes. The interrogation techniques used by the police were quite mild, and there were no objectionable methods used that might have rendered the confession "coerced" in the Due Process sense.
At the trial, Miranda's defense team moved to suppress the confession on the grounds the suspect had not been made aware of his
Fifth Amendment
right against self-incrimination. The confession was admitted into evidence and Miranda was convicted of rape and kidnapping and sentenced to 20 to 30 years imprisonment on each charge, with sentences to run concurrently.
The case was appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, which affirmed the trial court's decision. The Arizona Supreme Court's decision was heavily predicated on the fact Miranda did not request a lawyer.
In 1966, the
U.S. Supreme Court
reviewed the confession and the officer's testimony. Miranda's confession was written on pages that contained the words, "this confession was made with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me." Despite this, it was clear that Miranda had never been verbally advised of his right to counsel or his right to have a lawyer present during his questioning. The police never told Miranda of his right to not be compelled to incriminate himself.
The Supreme Court decided in a 5-4 ruling that without these warnings all statements Miranda made were presumed to have been compelled by the inherently coercive atmosphere of custodial interrogation, and the statements were therefore inadmissible under the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court went on to say that the very nature of a custodial police interrogation is intimidating and a suspect must be advised of his rights to counterbalance this intimidation.
