Search results
The Miranda vs Arizona case revolutionized law enforcement, ensuring suspects know their rights. Ernesto Miranda's confession led to a Supreme Court ruling that police must inform suspects of their right to remain silent and have an attorney. This protects individuals from self-incrimination, balancing public safety and constitutional rights.
Nov 24, 2009 · On June 13, 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court hands down its decision in Miranda v. Arizona , establishing the principle that all criminal suspects must be advised of their rights before...
Jan 19, 2022 · Law Library. Miranda v. Arizona: The Rights to Justice (March 13, 1963 – June 13, 1966) Introduction. Miranda v. Arizona: The Rights to Justice (March 13, 1963 – June 13, 1966) This guide discusses the seminal U.S. Supreme Court case of Miranda v. Arizona, featuring a chronology of key events and original documents from Supreme Court Justices.
- Background
- Decision
- Opinions
- Impact
- Aftermath
- See Also
Legal background
In 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its opinion in Escobedo v. Illinois(378 U.S. 478). Danny Escobedo was arrested and charged with the murder of his brother-in-law, Manuel Valtierra. Police attempted to interrogate Escobedo, but, on advice of counsel, Escobedo refused to make any statements. He was subsequently released. A week later, another suspect who was in police custody, Benedict DiGerlando, informed police that Escobedo shot his brother-in-law because of Valtierra's alleged mist...
Case background
Four cases were consolidated for argument before the U.S. Supreme Court. In addition to Miranda, the court heard arguments in Vignera v. New York, Westover v. U.S., and California v. Stewart. Around March 3, 1963, Ernesto Miranda allegedly kidnapped and raped a young woman near Phoenix, Arizona. On March 13, 1963, Miranda was arrested at his home and was taken in custody to a Phoenix police station. While in custody, Miranda was recognized by the complaining witness, at which point Miranda wa...
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Arizonaand held that confessions obtained from suspects who were not informed of their Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were not admissible in court.
Opinion of the court
Chief Justice Warren wrote the opinion for a five-justice majority, joined by Justices Black, Brennan, Douglas, and Fortas. Warren said the court would address "the admissibility of statements obtained from an individual who is subjected to custodial police interrogation and the necessity for procedures which assure that the individual is accorded his privilege under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution not to be compelled to incriminate himself."
Clark's dissent in part and concurrence in part
Justice Clark argued that the majority's opinion went "too far on too little." He said the majority's interpretation of the Fifth Amendment and the creation of Mirandawarnings were arbitrary:
Harlan's dissenting opinion
Justice Harlan argued that the Fifth Amendment's protections against self-incrimination applied only in courts and did not extend to the police station: "The Court's opinion in my view reveals no adequate basis for extending the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination to the police station. Far more important, it fails to show that the Court's new rules are well supported, let alone compelled, by Fifth Amendment precedents. Instead, the new rules actually derive from quotation...
The Supreme Court's decision in Miranda and the establishment of the Miranda warnings led law enforcement agencies to adopt the procedure of reading suspects their rights when they are arrested or brought into custody. Mirandamade it commonplace for police to inform arrestees that they have the right to remain silent, that anything they say can be ...
After the reversal of his conviction, Miranda was retried as "Joe Gomez" in order to protect his identity and with his incriminating statements excluded at trial. He was convicted again at trial largely due to the testimony of Miranda's common-law wife, who stated under oath that Miranda admitted to her that he abducted and raped the victim. He was...
The written confession was admitted into evidence at trial despite the objection of the defense attorney and the fact that the police officers admitted that they had not advised Miranda of his right to have an attorney present during the interrogation. The jury found Miranda guilty. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona affirmed and held that ...
This decision, crouched in a consolidated case where several unrelated individuals were questioned for prolonged periods of time without being informed of their rights, reaffirmed the Constitutional principles that “No person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself” and that “the accused shall . . . have the...
Nov 22, 2016 · What happened to Ernesto Miranda in his initial criminal trials? What did the Arizona Supreme Court decide on appeal? Explain its reasoning. What was Ernesto Miranda's argument in this...
