Search results
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.
- Clark
- Warren, joined by Black, Douglas, Brennan, Fortas
- Harlan, joined by Stewart, White
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.
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 ...
Apr 3, 2024 · Miranda v. 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
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.
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.
