Ernesto Miranda was accused of kidnapping and rape, when arrested he did not know what his rights were. He did not have a lawyer present while he was interrogated for two hours, mostly because he wasn’t aware that he had the right to have a lawyer according to the Sixth Amendment in the United States Constitution. He did not know the depth of his rights while being under arrest. He confessed to his crimes because he did not know that he is self-incriminating himself when he has the right to remain silent. Miranda was not informed about his fifth and sixth amendment right as a United States Citizen. Ernesto Miranda’s case ruling was fulfilled of legal tradition of the promise against self-incrimination because torture is unjustified, voluntary self-incrimination and Miranda rights.…show more content… In document K, the point of view illustrated is that if you do not want to be a witness against yourself, you do not have to be. If you do not want to confess, you do not have to; however, Ernest Miranda confessed to his crimes. “No person…shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law… (Document E).” Once again, a person does not have to confess during questioning or before