помогите перевести, не используя переводчик You have the right to remain

Помогите перевести, не используя переводчик
You have the right to remain silent; anything you say can be used against you , these are the words of the Miranda warning which was created as a result of 1966 US Supreme Court case, Miranda v. Arizona. The circumstances of the case that gives its name to the decision involved Ernesto Miranda, a 23-year-old truck driver who was arrested in 1963 on charges of kidnapping and rape. After two hours of questioning by officers at a police station, Miranda confessed to the crime. The officers, however, failed to advise Mr. Miranda that he had a right to have an attorney present. Miranda was convicted in an Arizona court on the basis of that confession and sentenced to a term of 20 to 30 years in prison. On appeal of his conviction, Mirandas attorneys asserted that the interrogation process was intimidating by its nature. Therefore, they argued, Mirandas statements had been compelled and should not have been admitted as evidence against him at trial. The public response to Miranda was generally negative. The media portrayed the decision as undermining law and order. Police and prosecutors criticized the decision, stating that it would hamper (препятствовать) their ability to solve crimes and obtain convictions. Congress attempted to pass legislation to invalidate the decision. Nevertheless, Miranda became law and police departments around the country quickly began to comply with its requirements. The pessimistic predictions (прогнозы) of law enforcement officials that the decision would hamper their efforts to convict criminals never came to pass. Miranda and the three defendants in the similar cases were retried and convicted again without the use of their confessions. Studies show that while the confession rate did decline after the Miranda decision, there was not a corresponding decrease in the conviction rate of criminal defendants