In criminal trials, a defendant's confession often provides influential evidence when it is the prosecutor's primary source of evidence. When a suspect is taken into custody to obtain a confession or statement, officers are required to read the Miranda warning if they believe the confession will be used to convict the suspect. The constitutional basis for the Miranda warning and the requirements for a voluntary waiver of Miranda rights were announced by the United States Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona. Miranda v. Arizona, announced June 13, 1966, resolved four separate criminal appeals regarding Miranda's role. of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution during police interrogations of criminal suspects. An Arizona jury found Ernesto Miranda guilty of kidnapping and rape after he signed a confession to Phoenix detectives. Without a lawyer present, he was questioned by the police for two hours. Three other cases received the same type of treatment; Vignera v. New York; California v. Stewart; and Westover v. UNITED STATES. The California case went to the California Supreme Court because there was no evidence that Stewart had been informed of his right to counsel and his right to remain silent. After the California ruling, the United States Supreme Court declared that the convictions of Ernesto Miranda and the two others convicted had been overturned. In Miranda v. Arizona, the court ruled that any statement or admission made during police interrogation of a criminal suspect would be considered involuntary and inadmissible unless police gave the suspect four warnings: the right to remain silent; the intention to use the suspect's statements against the suspect in court; the right to a lawyer during interrogation; and the...... middle of paper ...... and as an active set of guidelines; which should be continually transformed by the courts to reflect our changing ideas about the privilege against self-incrimination (Rushin, S). Works Cited Oberlander, LB and Goldstein, NE (2001). A review and update on Miranda's comprehension assessment practice. Behavioral Sciences and Law, 19(4), 453-471. doi:10.1002/bsl.453Rushin, S. (2011). Rethinking Miranda: The Right to Silence After Arrest. California Law Review, 99(1), 151-178. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.Seaborn, B., Andrews, JF, & Martin, G. (2010). Deaf adults and Miranda's understanding. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 10(2), 107-132. doi:10.1080/15228930903446732Vernon, M., Raifman, L.J., & Greenberg, S.F. (1996). Miranda warnings and the deaf suspect. Behavioral Sciences and Law, 14(1), 121-135. Taken from EBSCOhost.