Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and raping an eighteen-year-old girl near Phoenix, Arizona. During the police interrogation, Miranda, who was not informed of his right to remain si­lent or his right to counsel, confessed to the crime. The confession was introduced at trial, and Miranda was convicted. Miranda appealed, claiming that he had not been informed of his consti­tu­tional rights. His case was consolidated with three other cases involving similar issues and re­viewed by the United States Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court reversed Miranda’s conviction, ruling that he could not be con­victed of the crime on the basis of his confession because his confession was inadmissible as evidence. As a prerequisite to the admissibility of any statement made by a defendant, the defendant must be in­formed, before a police interrogation, of certain constitutional rights. These are: (1) that he or she has a right to remain silent, (2) that anything said can and will be used against the individual in court, (3) that he or she has the right to have an attorney present during questioning, and (4) that if the individ­ual cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed. If the accused waives his or her rights to remain silent and to have counsel present, the government must be able to demonstrate that the waiver was done knowingly and intelligently.

1. Is the Miranda decision an unnecessary burden on law enforcement?

2. Should illegally seized evidence be excluded from a criminal trial even if the evidence clearly shows the guilt of the person charged?