One of the Supreme Court landmarks cases which has left precedents in Criminal Procedure has been Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), which provided the popular known Miranda Rights or Miranda Warning. In order to understand the ruling of the Supreme Court in this case there should be a clear understanding of the facts of the case, the decision and its importance with current norms and procedures. Ernesto Miranda was a man living in Phoenix, Arizona in 1963. Miranda was arrested after a victim identified him in a police lineup. Miranda was charged with kidnapping and rape. Miranda was subjected to a two-hour interrogation by the police while he was custody. The police officers interrogated for two hours without advising Mr. Miranda about his fifth Amendment right which is the right against…show more content… His conviction was 20 to 30 years on each crime he confessed he was responsible of. Aster this Miranda’s attorney appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court. The attorney argued that Miranda was not aware of his rights and did not have an attorney present during interrogation. The police officers confessed that they did not informed or explained Miranda about his rights. Although the officer’s confessed they still argued that due to the fact that Miranda has being prior convicted he should have been aware of his rights. Ultimately the Arizona Supreme Court denied Miranda’s appeared and upheld his conviction. The questions that raised from this case were: What role has the police in protecting a suspect’s rights, as guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendment? The Fifth amendment states that “No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself” (US Const. amend. V.) and the Sixth Amendment states that, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to have the assistance of counsel for his defense." (US Const. amend.