USA HISTORY

Detailed explanation-1: -The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, ruled that the prosecution could not introduce Miranda’s confession as evidence in a criminal trial because the police had failed to first inform Miranda of his right to an attorney and against self-incrimination.

Detailed explanation-2: -Miranda was found guilty of kidnapping and rape and was sentenced to 20-30 years imprisonment on each count. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona held that Miranda’s constitutional rights were not violated in obtaining the confession.

Detailed explanation-3: -Impeachment Purposes If a defendant gives testimony at trial that conflicts with a statement made to the police, the prosecutor can offer a statement elicited in violation of Miranda to impeach (attack) the defendant’s credibility. (Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 (1971).)

Detailed explanation-4: -The Supreme Court ruled differently on June 13, 1966. It held that presenting Miranda’s confession as evidence violated his constitutional rights under the 5th and 6th Amendments.

Detailed explanation-5: -The Miranda is meaningless outside the US because it is effectively US law, which doesn’t apply elsewhere.