The Miranda case rose to prominence during one of the most prolific periods in the history of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Earl Warren and a liberal majority, was in the process of greatly expanding judicial power through several landmark decisions. Fortunately for Ernesto Miranda, the Warren Court was also interested in applying its judicial power toward the issue of criminal procedure. In 1965, Miranda v. Arizona was granted a petition for certiorari by the Supreme Court. John Flynn, now the acting attorney for Miranda, argued that the confession should be nullified because his client was not made aware of his right to an attorney or his right to remain silent, therefore violating his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights (5). Gary Nelson, an Assistant Attorney General in Arizona, was the lead counsel for the state. He argued that Miranda's constitutional rights were not violated, because he voluntarily refused his right to speak with an attorney before signing his confession (6). Nelson also argued that if the Court forced police officers to advise suspects of all their rights, the interrogation process would be severely hampered.
Three months later, on June 13, 1966, the Supreme Court handed down its decision. In a 5-4 ruling led by Chief Justice Warren, the Court sided with Ernesto Miranda. The majority opinion specifically outlined what police must do in order to ensure that suspected criminals are aware of their constitutional rights. Warren stated that "the person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court" (7). Furthermore, it made clear that suspects must also be informed of their right to an attorney (8). If they chose to remain silent or retain an attorney, then law enforcement would no longer be allowed to continue with the interrogation.