Miranda’s oral and written confessions are now held inadmissible under the Court’s new rules. One is entitled to feel astonished that the Constitution can be read to produce this result. Duane R. Nedrud, by special leave of Court, argued the cause for the National District Attorneys Association, as amicus curiae, urging affirmance in Nos. 759 and 760, and reversal in No. 584. Learn how the Miranda v. Arizona case summary moves from Ernesto Miranda’s arrest and the Court’s ruling to the warnings that now shape police questioning. Because of the defendant's low I.Q. and poor English-language skills, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that it was a clear error when the district court found that Garibay had knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights. In this case, the Supreme Court was asked to decide if the age of a juvenile being questioned by police should be taken into consideration when deciding if he or she is in police custody and, therefore, entitled to a Miranda warning. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled in favor of Miranda, holding that suspects must be informed of their constitutional rights before custodial interrogation. Ernesto Miranda was arrested after a victim identified him as her assailant. The police officers who questioned him did not inform him of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination or of his Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of an attorney. The Supreme Court’s Ruling The Supreme Court’s ruling in *Miranda v. Arizona* has significantly shaped the legal landscape of police interrogations in the United States. The case arose when Ernesto Miranda was arrested in 1963 and confessed to a crime without being informed of his rights. Case brief summary of Miranda v. Arizona including the facts, issue, holding, and reasoning. Written in plain English to help law students understand the key takeaways. Read the full case brief at Studicata. The Court reversed Ernesto Miranda's conviction for kidnapping and rape because his confession was obtained without him being informed of these rights. The ruling established these procedural safeguards to protect the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.