<P> During the 1960s, a movement which provided defendants with legal aid emerged from the collective efforts of various bar associations . </P> <P> In the civil realm, it led to the creation of the Legal Services Corporation under the Great Society program of President Lyndon Baines Johnson . Escobedo v. Illinois, a case which closely foreshadowed Miranda, provided for the presence of counsel during police interrogation . This concept extended to a concern over police interrogation practices, which were considered by many to be barbaric and unjust . Coercive interrogation tactics were known in period slang as the "third degree". </P> <P> On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested, by the Phoenix Police Department, based on circumstantial evidence linking him to the kidnapping and rape of an eighteen - year - old woman ten days earlier . After two hours of interrogation by police officers, Miranda signed a confession to the rape charge on forms that included the typed statement: "I do hereby swear that I make this statement voluntarily and of my own free will, with no threats, coercion, or promises of immunity, and with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me ." </P> <P> However, at no time was Miranda told of his right to counsel . Before being presented with the form on which he was asked to write out the confession he had already given orally, he was not advised of his right to remain silent, nor was he informed that his statements during the interrogation would be used against him . At trial, when prosecutors offered Miranda's written confession as evidence, his court - appointed lawyer, Alvin Moore, objected that because of these facts, the confession was not truly voluntary and should be excluded . Moore's objection was overruled and based on this confession and other evidence, Miranda was convicted of rape and kidnapping . He was sentenced to 20--30 years of imprisonment on each charge, with sentences to run concurrently . Moore filed Miranda's appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court, claiming that Miranda's confession was not fully voluntary and should not have been admitted into the court proceedings . The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision to admit the confession in State v. Miranda, 401 P. 2d 721 (Ariz . 1965). In affirmation, the Arizona Supreme emphasized heavily the fact that Miranda did not specifically request an attorney . </P>

When did the miranda vs arizona take place