Yahoo Web Search

  1. About 44 search results

  1. 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 ...

  2. 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.

  3. 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. He ...

  4. Summary. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1996), was a landmark U. S. Supreme Court case which ruled that prior to police interrogation, apprehended criminal suspects must be briefed of their constitutional rights addressed in the sixth amendment, right to an attorney and fifth amendment, rights of self incrimination.

  5. Justia US Supreme Court Center

  6. Aug 12, 2020 · Why Is Miranda v. Arizona Important? In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court recognized that because being questioned in police custody is inherently intimidating, people need to be informed of their rights. As Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote in the majority opinion: "[I]t is not admissible to do a great right by doing a little wrong."

  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. In addition, for a statement to be ...

  1. People also search for