Miranda v. Arizona
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
| Miranda v. Arizona | |
| Court | Supreme Court of the United States |
|---|---|
| Citation | |
| Date decided | June 13, 1966 |
| Appealed from | Arizona Supreme Court |
Facts
Ernesto Miranda confessed after questioning by Arizona police while he was in custody.
Before confessing, Miranda hadn't been advised of his right to counsel under the 6th Amendment.
Like Miranda, 2 other suspects (Vignera & Westover (defendants)) confessed to crimes after custodial interrogations without being notified of their rights to lawyers.Procedural History
At trial, the confession of Miranda was admitted. The jury found him guilty of kidnapping & rape.
Issues
Is it okay for police to isolate their subject? Is it okay for the police to minimize the moral seriousness of a crime to obtain a confession? Is denying an attorney to a suspect acceptable?
Holding
Miranda warnings must be given to suspects.
Judgment
The statements of all 4 men are in-admissible. The convictions were reversed.
Reasons
Cutting suspects off from the outside world creates an environment ripe for intimidation.
Rule
People in police custodial interrogation have the (1) right to remain silent, (2) the right to have a lawyer, and (3) right to stop interrogation until a lawyer becomes available.
Comments
Miranda was a consolidation of 4 cases.
- Spano v. New York (1959)
- Bram v. United States
- Brown v. Mississippi
- Dickerson v. United States (2000) affirmed the constitutionality of Miranda warnings again. See the video explanation by Quimbee.
Resources
