Complete 6 pages APA formatted article: Miranda v. Arizona 1966. When in the trial, the lawyer representing Miranda objected to the confessional statement because the confession that Miranda had made

Complete 6 pages APA formatted article: Miranda v. Arizona 1966. When in the trial, the lawyer representing Miranda objected to the confessional statement because the confession that Miranda had made was not made voluntarily. Miranda was still convicted of rape and kidnapping because of the evidence that had been found against him. In result, the lawyer filed for an appeal in which he stated that the confession that had been made was not voluntary and should not have been included in the court trial.

Questions from legal authorities came up about whether or not a confession is acceptable in the court if it has been taken without the warnings of what he says might result to him getting in more trouble or the rights that the suspect is given in such situations according to the 5th and 6th amendments. (Miranda v. Arizona (1966)). Also about what the general standard of judging confessions has become. Miranda was cleared violated of his 5th amendment right to remain silent and the 6th amendment which was the right to have legal counsel. The confessions were illegally obtained and should have been discarded. That led to the conviction being faulty and that Miranda should have gotten a re-trial.

Chief Justice Warren declared that the state should have used the proper procedure before sentencing the suspect. Because of not having used a proper channel to get the confessions, Warren states that they could easily be discarded according to the law. The suspect should always be able to not incriminate himself in such a situation. Miranda was not given his legal rights and was not allowed to consult with an attorney during the time of interrogation. Without these rights, his statement which even had the typed in a clause that he was responsible and knew entirely of his legal rights was inadmissible. (Miranda v. Arizona (1966)). Miranda had the right to the presence of an attorney and if he could not afford one then one would be appointed to him before any of the questionings began if he desired.