<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> <P> Attorney John Paul Frank, former law clerk to Justice Hugo Black, represented Miranda in his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court . </P> <P> Chief Justice Earl Warren, a former prosecutor, delivered the opinion of the Court, ruling that due to the coercive nature of the custodial interrogation by police (Warren cited several police training manuals which had not been provided in the arguments), no confession could be admissible under the Fifth Amendment self - incrimination clause and Sixth Amendment right to an attorney unless a suspect had been made aware of his rights and the suspect had then waived them: </P> <P> The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him . </P>

In miranda v arizona which amendments did the supreme court rule were violated