Search results
People also ask
Where can I find the text of Miranda v Arizona?
Why was Miranda v Arizona a controversial decision?
Did Miranda violate his constitutional rights?
Did Miranda request an attorney?
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.
- Names
- Headings
- Call Number/Physical Location
Warren, Earl (Judge)Supreme Court of the United States (Author)- Law- Police- Law Library- Supreme CourtCall Number: KF101Series: Criminal Law and ProcedureSeries: Volume 384Arizona, 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
Apr 3, 2024 · 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.
- The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica
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.
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.
Citation. Miranda v. Ariz., 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694, 10 Ohio Misc. 9, 36 Ohio Op. 2d 237, 10 A.L.R.3d 974 (U.S. June 13, 1966)
