Yahoo Web Search

Search results

  1. 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 ...

  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. Mar 11, 2017 · Case Summary of Miranda v. Arizona: Miranda was taken into custody by police for purposes of interrogation, where he later confessed. Miranda was not informed of his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent or right to have counsel present. Evidence of each confession was used at trial.

  5. Nov 4, 2023 · On March 13, 1963, police arrested Ernesto Miranda on charges of rape and kidnapping after a witness identified him in Phoenix, Arizona. During his two-hour interrogation, police did not advise Miranda on his constitutional rights to an attorney nor against self-incrimination.

  6. Jan 24, 2021 · 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. Key Question: Does the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination extend to the police interrogation of a suspect?

  1. People also search for