The victim did not specifically identify Miranda as her molester. She merely stated that Miranda looked akin to the attacker and that his features seemed to be similar to those of her attacker. The police officer intentionally deceived Miranda and stated that the victim had identified him as her attacker. Subsequently, Miranda was arrested and two police officers took him to an interrogation room. In that place Miranda confessed to having molested the victim. During this entire process, Miranda was at no point of time informed that he had a right to abstain from incriminating himself. In addition, he was not advised to seek the assistance of an attorney although he had the right to do so (Miranda Rights - A view Across the Pond).
In order to justify their inequitable actions, the police stated that Miranda, as an ex-convict, was expected to be familiar with the process of interrogation. Moreover, the police submitted a written confession by Miranda; which had a disclaimer printed at the top that the suspect had been informed of his rights. The disclaimer also stated that the confession had been made voluntarily without any coercion. As such, the rights of the suspect were not printed on this paper (Miranda Rights - A view Across the Pond).
Subsequently, the case came up before the Supreme Court, where a 5:4 majority held that the police had to follow certain basic procedures, as specified in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, in order to protect the rights of a suspect during custodial interrogations.