How the Miranda vs. Arizona case spurred the Supreme Court to specifically outline the necessary aspects of police warnings to suspects.

In 1963, an 18-year-old woman was kidnapped and raped in Phoenix, Arizona. The police investigated the case, (Miranda vs. the State of Arizona), and arrested Ernesto Miranda, a mentally unstable man. Miranda, who was 23-years-old at the time of his arrest, confessed that he had kidnapped and raped the woman. By confessing to the crime, Miranda was convicted of kidnapping and rape. However, when Miranda was arrested he was not advised of his rights as they …showed first 75 words of 1209 total…

…showed last 75 words of 1209 total…of his Miranda rights. The district court ruled that the statements made at Fellers' home were inadmissible but that the statements at the jail could be used. Fellers was convicted. On appeal, an Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. They agreed that the interview at the jail was admissible and extended the ruling to say that the statements made at his home were also admissible because they were not part of an interrogation.