Miranda v. Arizona
16 L. Ed. 2d 694 · Supreme Court of the United States · 1966
Facts
Ernesto Miranda was arrested and questioned by police without being informed of his right to an attorney or his right to remain silent. He signed a confession, which was admitted as evidence at trial, leading to his conviction for kidnapping and rape. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, emphasizing that Miranda did not specifically request counsel.
Issue
Does the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination extend to individuals subjected to custodial police interrogation, and if so, what procedural safeguards are necessary to secure this privilege?
Holding
The Supreme Court reversed Miranda's conviction, holding that statements obtained from custodial interrogation are inadmissible unless the suspect is informed of their right to remain silent, that anything they say can be used against them, and their right to an attorney, including a court-appointed one if indigent. A knowing and intelligent waiver of these rights must be demonstrated by the prosecution.
Rule
Prior to any custodial questioning, a person must be warned that they have a right to remain silent, that any statement they make may be used as evidence against them, and that they have a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. If these warnings are not given, or if the individual invokes these rights, any statements obtained are inadmissible in court.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.