Case Summary: 

Four cases brought in question due to the admission of statements without proper advisement of rights created insecurity surrounding the proper advice necessities before offering self-incriminating evidence or interview statements. In these cases, subjects giving statements were questioned in rooms which were not open to the outside, creating confusion in personal rights of the Fifth Amendment. As per the ruling, it is now necessary to advise defendants of their rights before collecting statements following arrest to protect defendants from self-incrimination. Within these rights is the right to a lawyer, and the right to stop communicating verbally with officers as per the Fifth Amendment (following the advisement being given). 

Backing Facts: 

1. One of the cases in question contained a statement written and signed after two hours of questioning. 
2. One of the cases involved a failure to advise the defendant of their rights (as it was not in ruling at that time). 
3. The fifth amendment protects against self-incrimination. It also contains other rights for legal proceedings. 

Related: 

1. Fifth Amendment 
2. Vignera v. New York
3. Westover v. United States
4. California v. Stewart

Writer’s Note: 

These cases are simple to follow, so I’d recommend looking into all of them. Especially in the case of Miranda Vs. Arizona, the conviction was solid, but it raised some questions about rights.  

References: 

United States Courts. “Facts and Case Summary – Miranda v. Arizona.” United States Courts, 1966, http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/educational-activities/fifth-amendment-activities/miranda-v-arizona/facts-and-case-summary-miranda-v-arizona.