Yahoo Web Search

  1. About 3,730,000,000 search results

  1. Miranda v. Arizona: Miranda was arrested at his home and taken in custody to a police station where he was identified by the complaining witness. He was then interrogated by two police officers for two hours, which resulted in a signed, written confession. At trial, the oral and written confessions were presented to the jury.

  2. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution restricts prosecutors from using a person's statements made in response to interrogation in police custody as evidence at their trial unless they can show that the person was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning, and of the right against self-incrimination before police questioning, and ...

    • Clark
    • Warren, joined by Black, Douglas, Brennan, Fortas
    • Harlan, joined by Stewart, White
    • Defendant . Superior Ct.; affirmed, 401 P.2d 721 (Ariz. 1965); cert. granted, 382 U.S. 925 (1965).
  3. Oct 14, 2022 · Miranda v. Arizona , legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 13, 1966, established a code of conduct for police interrogations of criminal suspects held in custody. Chief Justice Earl Warren , writing for a 5–4 majority, held that prosecutors may not use statements made by suspects under questioning in police custody unless certain minimum procedural safeguards were followed.

    • The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica
  4. Miranda v. Arizona is the Supreme Court case where it was held that the custodial interrogation of an individual must be accompanied by an instruction that the person has the right to remain silent, any statements made can be used against the person, and that the individual has the right to counsel, either retained or appointed.

  5. 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 exercised or waived in a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent manner.

  6. Mar 11, 2017 · Case Summary of Miranda v. Arizona: Miranda was taken into custody by police for purposes of interrogation, where he later confessed. Miranda was not informed of his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent or right to have counsel present. Evidence of each confession was used at trial. Miranda was convicted and appealed

  7. Jan 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.

  1. People also search for