What was the court's final decision in the Miranda v Arizona case?

In 1966, the Supreme Court ruled in Miranda v Arizona that criminal suspects must be informed of their right to an attorney and their right not to make incriminating statements. If suspects are not read their rights, then none of their subsequent statements will be admissible in a court of law, even if they make a full confession. In this particular case, the plaintiff, Miranda, had indeed confessed to the crime. However, because his confession...

In 1966, the Supreme Court ruled in Miranda v Arizona that criminal suspects must be informed of their right to an attorney and their right not to make incriminating statements. If suspects are not read their rights, then none of their subsequent statements will be admissible in a court of law, even if they make a full confession. In this particular case, the plaintiff, Miranda, had indeed confessed to the crime. However, because his confession had been made without the police reading him his rights, his conviction was ruled unsafe by the Supreme Court and was therefore thrown out. The case then went back to the state court for retrial; this time, Miranda was convicted because the prosecution's evidence did not include his original confession.

The case was a landmark in civil rights, one of a number that came before the Warren Court. It led to greater protection for criminal suspects and gave birth to the Miranda warning, made famous by countless TV shows and movies:

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?