Miranda v Arizona was among the Supreme Court cases that

the rights of both Miranda's 5th and 6th Amendments were violated; however, additional facts led to the conclusion of a 'guilty' verdict in terms of the ra*pe proceedings.

Explanation:

Ernesto Miranda was det*ained from his house on March 13, 1963, and taken to the police station where he was interrogated by law enforcement officers in connection with an a*bduction and r*ape. Investigators also received a written confession from Miranda following two hours of questioning. The Supreme Court ruled that statements made by a defendant to investigators are not admissible in court unless the defendant has been notified of his right to have an attorney available during interrogation and an agreement that everything he says would be used against him in the trial.

i think that the answer is polishing peanuts