Childhood & early adulthood
In his early life, Ernesto Miranda faced tremendous amounts of adversity. As a result of the passing of his mother and the tensions with his father, Miranda found himself making poor decisions, both academically and socially. Even in grade school, he lacked focus and was involved in mischief. By eighth grade, Miranda was convicted for the first time. The following year, was convicted of burglary and sentenced to a year in reform school. In 1956, about a month after his release from the reform school, Arizona State Industrial School for Boys (ASISB), he fell afoul of the law once more and was returned to ASISB. Upon his second release from reform school he relocated to California. Within months of his arrival in LA, Miranda was arrested (but not convicted) on suspicion of armed robbery and for some sex offenses. After two and a half years in custody the 18-year-old Miranda was extradited back to Arizona. These events shaped Miranda as a person and can be reflected later in his adulthood.
Life Changing Experience
The case erupted when twenty-two year old Ernesto Miranda was arrested on March 13th 1963, based on charges consisting of rape, murder, and robbery. Miranda, due to his lack of education and mental instability, was unaware of his rights(such as the right to counsel, the right to remain silent, and being informed that any statements made during the interrogation could be used against him) during a two-hour police interrogation. Thus, Miranda signed a waiver given to him by the police in which he admitted to the crime. The trial took place in mid-June 1963 before Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Yale McFate. His court-appointed lawyer, Alvin Moore, argued that the confession was not voluntary and thus was invalid as evidence. However, Moore’s argument was overruled and Miranda was convicted.
Burglary
APpeals
Moore appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, claiming that the police had unconstitutionally obtained Miranda’s confession. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the decision that the confession was legitimate evidence, so Miranda submitted his plea for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in June 1965. His original court-appointed lawyer, Alvin Moore, was unable to take the case because of health reasons, so Miranda was represented by John J. Flynn, a criminal defense attorney, along with his partner, John P. Frank, and associates Paul G. Ulrich and Robert A. Jensen of the law firm Lewis & Roca in Phoenix.
In November 1965, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Miranda's case, Miranda v. Arizona, as a consolidation of four cases (Miranda v. Arizona, Vignera v. New York, Westover v. United States, California v. Stewart) in each of which the defendant confessed guilt after being subjected to a variety of interrogation techniques without being informed of his Fifth Amendment rights during an interrogation. The Supreme Court sought to clear all misunderstandings created by the ruling of Escobedo v. Illinois, a case that established the precedent for whether statements attained during police investigations in which the suspect was refused an opportunity to consult his counsel and who had not been warned of his constitutional rights could be used against him in trial. That case had ruled that:
"Under the circumstances of this case, where a police investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect in police custody who has been refused an opportunity to consult with his counsel and who has not been warned of his constitutional right to keep silent, the accused has been denied the assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, and no statement extracted by the police during the interrogation may be used against him at a trial. Crooker v. California, 357 U.S. 433, and Cicenia v. Lagay, 357 U.S. 504, distinguished, and, to the extent that they may be inconsistent with the instant case, they are not controlling. Pp. 479–492."
In November 1965, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Miranda's case, Miranda v. Arizona, as a consolidation of four cases (Miranda v. Arizona, Vignera v. New York, Westover v. United States, California v. Stewart) in each of which the defendant confessed guilt after being subjected to a variety of interrogation techniques without being informed of his Fifth Amendment rights during an interrogation. The Supreme Court sought to clear all misunderstandings created by the ruling of Escobedo v. Illinois, a case that established the precedent for whether statements attained during police investigations in which the suspect was refused an opportunity to consult his counsel and who had not been warned of his constitutional rights could be used against him in trial. That case had ruled that:
"Under the circumstances of this case, where a police investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect in police custody who has been refused an opportunity to consult with his counsel and who has not been warned of his constitutional right to keep silent, the accused has been denied the assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, and no statement extracted by the police during the interrogation may be used against him at a trial. Crooker v. California, 357 U.S. 433, and Cicenia v. Lagay, 357 U.S. 504, distinguished, and, to the extent that they may be inconsistent with the instant case, they are not controlling. Pp. 479–492."