Search results
The written confession was admitted into evidence at trial despite the objection of the defense attorney and the fact that the police officers admitted that they had not advised Miranda of his right to have an attorney present during the interrogation. The jury found Miranda guilty. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona affirmed and held that ...
- 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 384People also ask
Who ruled in Miranda v Arizona?
Where can I find the text of Miranda v Arizona?
Why was Miranda v Arizona a controversial decision?
Did Miranda violate his constitutional rights?
V, VI, XIV. 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
Supreme Court Case. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 (1966) “ [T]he constitutional foundation underlying the privilege is the respect a government—state or federal—must accord to the dignity and integrity of its citizens. . . . [T]o permit a full opportunity to exercise the privilege against self-incrimination, the accused must be ...
Apr 3, 2024 · Earl Warren. 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 ...
- The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica
Arizona (1966) 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.
Jan 19, 2022 · U.S. Reports: Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 1966. U.S. Reports. Law Library of Congress. Decided June 13, 1966, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. With Chief Justice Earl Warren presiding, the Court held that—at the point of interrogation and while in police custody ...
