The Miranda Warning Was Created by a Supreme Court Case

Before 1966, the constitutional rights of a suspect inside a police interrogation room were dangerously ambiguous. The Fifth Amendment protected against self-incrimination, but the psychologically coercive nature of police questioning often led to confessions that were later challenged as involuntary. Courts had to decide on a case-by-case basis whether a confession was forced, creating an inconsistent standard for what was permissible behind closed doors. The Supreme Court sought a clearer, more uniform way to protect individuals from the inherent pressures of police custody.

The case of Ernesto Miranda provided the perfect opportunity for this reform. When the Court reviewed his conviction, which was based on a confession obtained without any mention of his right to a lawyer, it established a new procedural safeguard. The ruling created a non-negotiable script, now known as the Miranda warning, that officers must read to suspects before an interrogation. This proactive step shifted the focus from debating a confession's "voluntariness" after the fact to ensuring suspects are informed of their rights from the outset.

Ironically, the ruling that made his name famous did not set Ernesto Miranda free. His confession was thrown out, but prosecutors retried him using other evidence and secured a conviction. In an even more tragic twist, after being paroled from prison, Miranda was killed during a bar fight. The suspect in his murder was arrested and, as required by law, was read his Miranda rights.