1. Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

2. A landmark case in United States Supreme court history, dealing with the rights citizens of the United States retain when arrested.

3. In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested for robbery
In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested for robbery. He was interrogated by police and confessed. At trial, prosecutors offered only his confession as evidence and he was convicted.

4. The Supreme Court ruled that Mr
The Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Miranda was intimidated by the interrogation and did not understand that he had the right not to incriminate himself and the right to have counsel, and they overturned his conviction. Miranda was retried, and this time the police did not use the confession but called witnesses and used other evidence. Miranda was convicted, and served 11 years.

5. The Supreme Court did not specify the exact wording to be used when reading a suspect's rights. However, they did set down a set of guidelines which must be followed. The ruling stated: "...The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him."

6. This principle of law, though under different names, has been adopted in jurisdictions throughout the English speaking world. In fact, due to the prevalence of American TV police dramas made since that decision in which the cops characters constantly give the Miranda warning or more commonly known as "reading them their rights," it has become an expected element of arrest procedure around the world. As a result, the US English vocabulary has acquired a new verb, "to mirandize" meaning to read to a suspect, held in custody, his Miranda rights.