(Cross & Miller, 165).
However, some legal professionals were of the impression that Miranda had been denied his legal rights to remain quiet and to have an attorney during the police interrogation. AUCL helped Miranda to initiate a ‘thirty-six months’ legal battle on the issue and finally, the issue was posted before the Supreme Court.
Before and during the Miranda’s case, the accused or the suspect had the constitutional rights to remain silence but the main question was when and how those privileges could be used. Whether the right to remain quiet or silent, which is being guaranteed under the Fifth Amendment’s which bar against self-incrimination be practiced either during the police interrogation at the pretrial stage or only during the trail stage of the case. Were admissions obtained from accused permissible in court if the accused was not reminded of his privilege to remain quiet and other legitimate privileges? (Cross & Miller, 164).
These questions were answered in the ‘Miranda v. Arizona1, a milestone judgment by U.S Supreme Court which held that anyone accused of a crime had “the privilege to remain silent.” Thus, Supreme Court verdict is being referred as ‘Miranda Warning’ that is being applicable every individual who is arrested in U.S.A. Further, Miranda case also unveiled the privileges of the defendant, especially in criminal cases. (Cross & Miller, 164).
Fifth Amendment to U.S Constitution offers to safeguard against the self-accusation and a right to have a counsel during police questioning of an accused is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. Under the Fifth Amendment, an individual cannot be forced to swear against her or himself or to offer incriminating testimony that can be employed later in a trial. The Sixth Amendment offers the constitutional right to engage a counsel during police questioning. (Cross & Miller, 165).