Annotated 1.In Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the Supreme Court ruled that detained criminal suspects, prior to police questioning, must be informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and against self-incrimination. 2.The Court maintained that the defendant's right against self-incrimination has long been part of Anglo-American law as a means to equalize the vulnerability inherent in being detained. 3.Thus, to protect these rights in the face of widespread ignorance of the law, the Court devised statements that the police are required to tell a defendant who is being detained and interrogated. 4.Hisstatement also said that he was aware of his right against self-incrimination.During his trial, the prosecution used his confession to obtain a conviction, and hewas sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison on each count. 5.Miranda appealed his case to the Arizona Supreme Court. His attorney argued that his confession should have been excluded from trial because he had not beeninformed of his rights, nor had an attorney been present during his interrogation. primary1.www.mirandarights.org/ primary2.www.mirandawarning.org/whatareyourmirandarights.html primary3.Miranda Rights were created in 1966 as a result of the United States Supreme Court case of Miranda v. Arizona. primary4.Police were able to take advantage of the fact that not everyone knows their rights by heart. In fact, it is likely that most citizens could name a few of their rights as accused criminals, but not all of them. primary5.You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense.