Decision of the Court

The Supreme Court came to the decision that statements previously made by the defendants during custodial interrogation unless the proper procedural precautions were taken "effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination." The Court noted that "the modern practice of in-custody interrogation is psychologically rather than physically oriented" and that "the blood of the accused is not the only hallmark of an unconstitutional inquisition"(www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_759). Specific rules were laid out by the Supreme Court as to what police are supposed to say while giving warnings to suspects, "including the right to remain silent and the right to have counsel during interrogations"(www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_759). And, “the accused have the right to remain silent and that prosecutors may not use statements made by defendants while in police custody unless the police have advised them of their rights, commonly called the Miranda Rights” (http://www.thecapras.org/mcapra/miranda/rights.html#MirandaVsArizona) .The Supreme Court decided the case with 5 votes for Ernesto Miranda and 4 votes against him, with the legal provision of self-incrimination. Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren wrote the full majority opinion. I agree more with the dissent opinion because lawyers are good at hiding things and if a guilty person had not been advised of his or her right to counsel, they may have admitted to the crime they committed. If, however, they chose to have a lawyer present, the lawyer would prevent the guilty suspect from making any incriminating statements, making justice harder to be served.