Search results
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.
Generate APA style citations quickly and accurately with our FREE APA citation generator. Enter a website URL, book ISBN, or search with keywords, and we do the rest! Updated with APA 7th Edition!
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 understand his rights?
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
The purposes of this chapter are the following: first, to describe what led up to the Miranda v. Arizona decision rendered by the United States Supreme Court in 1966 (that is, to review not only those earlier Supreme Court decisions that dealt with interrogations but also the nature of police questioning at that time); second, to identify the ...
- Lawrence S. Wrightsman
- 2010
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.
Jan 24, 2021 · Case Argued: Feb 28–March 2, 1966. Decision Issued: Jun 13, 1966. Petitioner: Ernesto Miranda, a suspect who was arrested and brought to the Phoenix, Arizona, police station for questioning. Respondent: State of Arizona.
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.
