About.com explains that the primary outcome of Miranda vs. Arizona (1966) was the creation of "Miranda rights," which must be explained to an individual suspected of a crime before questioning by the authorities. These rights include the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney's presence, among others.
The Miranda case, as it came to be known, revolved around the kidnapping and rape of a woman in 1963. The victim, known only by a pseudonym, accused Ernesto Miranda of the crime. After three hours alone with investigators, Miranda wrote a confession that was presented at his trial. According to About.com, Miranda was convicted and sentenced to 20-30 years in prison.
Miranda would eventually appeal on several legal grounds related to his confession. He claimed he didn't have a lawyer present during questioning and didn't know that his statement could be held against him. The Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Earl Warren, issued a 5-4 decision that Miranda's statement could not be used as evidence against him under these conditions, and that such statements must be made voluntarily and after a waiver of the right to remain silent. According to About.com, Miranda was later granted a new trial, convicted without the confession, and served eight years in prison.