Yahoo Web Search

Search results

1. www.oyez.org › cases › 1965Miranda v. Arizona | Oyez

   www.oyez.org › cases › 1965

   Miranda v. Arizona. Media. Oral Argument - February 28, 1966. Oral Argument - March 01, 1966. Oral Argument - March 02, 1966. Opinions. Syllabus. View Case. Petitioner. Miranda. Respondent. Arizona. Location. Phoenix, Arizona. Docket no. 759. Decided by. Warren Court. Citation. 384 US 436 (1966) Argued. Feb 28 - 2, 1966. Decided. Jun 13, 1966.

2. psycnet.apa.org › record › 2018/38264/003Review of research and recent case law on understanding and ...

   psycnet.apa.org › record › 2018/38264/003

   • Cached

   Abstract. The Supreme Court's decision in Miranda v. Arizona entitled suspects in custodial interrogation to be informed of their rights to silence and counsel, an eponymous notification now known as the Miranda warnings.

3. People also ask

   Why was Miranda v Arizona a controversial decision?

   • The Miranda decision was one of the most controversial rulings of the Warren Court, which had become increasingly concerned about the methods used by local police to obtain confessions. Miranda v. Arizona reversed an Arizona court’s conviction of Ernesto Miranda on charges of kidnapping and rape.

   Miranda v. Arizona | Definition, Background, & Facts | Britannica

   www.britannica.com/event/Miranda-v-Arizona

   See all results for this question

   Who ruled on Miranda?

   • From there, his attorneys, with the assistance of the American Civil Liberties Union, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court actually decided four different cases that all had similar circumstances when they ruled on Miranda. Under Chief Justice Earl Warren, the court sided with Miranda in a 5-4 vote.

   Miranda v Arizona: Supreme Court Case - ThoughtCo

   www.thoughtco.com/miranda-v-arizona-104966

   See all results for this question

   Did Miranda violate his constitutional rights?

   • The jury found Miranda guilty. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona affirmed and held that Miranda’s constitutional rights were not violated because he did not specifically request counsel. Does the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination extend to the police interrogation of a suspect?

   Miranda v. Arizona | Oyez

   www.oyez.org/cases/1965/759

   See all results for this question

   Did Miranda understand his rights?

   • The paper on which he wrote his confession stated that the information was given voluntarily and that he understood his rights. However, no specific rights were listed on the paper. Miranda was found guilty in an Arizona court based largely on the written confession. He was sentenced to 20 to 30 years for both crimes to be served concurrently.

   Miranda v Arizona: Supreme Court Case - ThoughtCo

   www.thoughtco.com/miranda-v-arizona-104966

   See all results for this question

4. psycnet.apa.org › record › 2010/15316/004“Everyone knows their Miranda rights”: Implicit assumptions ...

   psycnet.apa.org › record › 2010/15316/004

   • Cached

   In its landmark decision in Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the Supreme Court of the United States buttressed the Constitutional privilege against self-incrimination by requiring as a procedural safeguard that various aspects of this privilege be clearly communicated to custodial suspects.

   • Author: Richard Rogers, Jill E. Rogstad, Nathan D. Gillard, Eric Y. Drogin, Hayley L. Blackwood, Daniel W. S...

   • Publish Year: 2010

5. www.britannica.com › event › Miranda-v-ArizonaMiranda v. Arizona | Definition, Background, & Facts | Britannica

   www.britannica.com › event › Miranda-v-Arizona

   • Cached

   May 17, 2024 · Arizona, legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 13, 1966, established the Miranda warnings, a set of guidelines for police interrogations of criminal suspects in custody designed to ensure that suspects are accorded their Fifth Amendment right not to be compelled to incriminate themselves.

   • Author: The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica

6. link.springer.com › referenceworkentry › 10Miranda v. Arizona | SpringerLink

   link.springer.com › referenceworkentry › 10

   • Cached

   Jan 1, 2018 · Heilbronner, R.L. (2018). Miranda v. Arizona. In: Kreutzer, J.S., DeLuca, J., Caplan, B. (eds) Encyclopedia of Clinical Neuropsychology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57111-9_1010. Download citation.RIS.ENW.BIB; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57111-9_1010. Published: 20 September 2018. Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

   • Email: r-heilbronner@northwestern.edu

7. constitutioncenter.org › miranda-v-arizonaMiranda v. Arizona | Constitution Center

   constitutioncenter.org › miranda-v-arizona

   • Cached

   Supreme Court Case. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 (1966) Miranda warning. National Constitution Center Collection. Justice Vote: 5-1-3. Majority: Warren (author), Black, Douglas, Brennan, Fortas.

8. www.thoughtco.com › miranda-v-arizona-104966Miranda v Arizona: Supreme Court Case - ThoughtCo

   www.thoughtco.com › miranda-v-arizona-104966

   • Cached

   Jan 24, 2021 · Updated on January 24, 2021. Miranda v. Arizona was a significant Supreme Court case that ruled that a defendant's statements to authorities are inadmissible in court unless the defendant has been informed of their right to have an attorney present during questioning and an understanding that anything they say will be held against them.