Search results
Facts. The Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona addressed four different cases involving custodial interrogations. In each of these cases, the defendant was questioned by police officers, detectives, or a prosecuting attorney in a room in which he was cut off from the outside world.
Miranda v. Arizona: Under the Fifth Amendment, any statements that a defendant in custody makes during an interrogation are admissible as evidence at a criminal trial only if law enforcement told the defendant of the right to remain silent and the right to speak with an attorney before the interrogation started, and the rights were either ...
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that law enforcement in the United States must warn a person of their constitutional rights before interrogating them, or else the person's statements cannot be used as evidence at their trial.
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.
- The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica
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.
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.
Overview. Ernesto Miranda was arrested after a victim identified him as her assailant. The police officers who questioned him did not inform him of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination or of his Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of an attorney. He confessed to the crime, however, his attorney later argued that his ...
