The History of Miranda Rights in Arizona

The Miranda warning, also known as Miranda Rights, is the formal warning that police are required to give to criminal suspects in police custody before they are interrogated. They are used as protections against any possible police intimidation toward a suspect and to preserve the admissibility of any statement the suspect may have that can be used against them in criminal proceedings. The Miranda Rights have become routine procedure to ensure that suspects are informed of their Constitutional rights.


In 1966, Ernesto Miranda of Arizona was accused of robbery, kidnapping and rape. When he was under police interrogation, he signed a written document confessing to the crimes. However, during the interrogation, Miranda was not told of his right to counsel or remain silent, nor was he informed that any statements he made could be used against him. At his trial, his court-appointed lawyer objected that because of this, Miranda’s confession was not voluntarily given and should be overruled. This objection was overruled, but the Arizona Supreme Court determined that Miranda did in fact not specifically request an attorney before or after his confession.

As a result of the June 13, 1966 ruling of Miranda v. Arizona, suspects must be informed of their specific legal rights when placed under arrest. The text for the Miranda Warning was finalized in 1968 by California deputy attorney general Doris Maier and district attorney Harold Berliner.

Before the Miranda Warning was established, confessions were only required to be voluntary on part of the suspect. This proved to be problematic because suspects were often faced with evidence that they were not aware of while they were giving their confession, either because they were not of sound mind or were under circumstantial duress. Tuscon criminal defense lawyers at Thrush Law Group can help you determine if you have a case against possible Miranda violation. In order for the Miranda Rule to apply with the use of testimonial evidence, six requirements must be fulfilled.
1. The evidence must have been gathered
2. Evidence must be testimonial as defined under the Fifth Amendment
3. Evidence must have been obtained while the suspect was in custody
4. Evidence must have been the product of interrogation
5. State agents must have conducted the interrogation
6. The evidence must be offered by the state during criminal prosecution

If a suspect is arrested and police do not read them their Miranda rights, it can result in evidence being suppressed, depending on the specific circumstances of a case. If there is suspicion of a Miranda Rule violation, the defense must show that the defendant made the statements in the context of custodial interrogation, and that law enforcement did not give the required Miranda warnings before the defendant made any statements. If this motion is successfully suppressed, then a prosecutor in a trail cannot use any of the defendant’s confessions or statements against them.

The Miranda Rights are designed to protect the rights of an individual so they are clearly aware of their legal rights and options. If you have been arrested and feel that you were not clearly explained your rights or you are a victim of Miranda Rule violation, contact a Phoenix criminal defense attorney immediately.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *