1. Miranda v. Arizona
1966

2. Ernesto Miranda I did not know i had a right to a layer first
I did not know that i didn't have to answer their questions while being interrogated
They should have told me these rights
Argued he had not been informed of his constitutional right to remain silent or have a lawyer present

3. Summary of the background of the case
Miranda was arrested at his home and taken in custody to a police station where he was identified as suspect. He was then interrogated by police officers for a few hours, which resulted in a confession. At trial, both confessions were presented to the jury. Miranda was found guilty of kidnapping and rape and was sentenced to years of prison on each count. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona held that Miranda’s constitutional rights were not violated in obtaining the confession.
Ernesto Miranda
Phoenix police department
Arizona Supreme Court

4. Constitutional Issue
Whether “statements obtained from an individual who is subjected to custodial police interrogation” are admissible against him in a criminal trial and whether “procedures which assure that the individual is accorded his privilege under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution not to be compelled to incriminate himself” are necessary.

5. President at the time of case
Lyndon B. Johnson

6. Summary of Supreme Court decision
In a 5-4 majority, the court held that statements made in response to an interrogation by a defendant in a police custody will be admissible at a trial only if the prosecution can show that the defendant was informed of the right to consult with an attorney and of the right of self-incrimination before police questioning, and that the defendant understood these rights, but voluntarily waive them.

7. Bibliography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_B._Johnson
case-summary-miranda-v-arizona