# data[].attributes.body
Chief Justice Earl Warren
Associate justices

Justice Tom C. Clark

Justice John M. Harlan II

Justice Potter Stewart

Justice Byron R. White

Justice Hugo L. Black

Justice William O. Douglas

Justice William J. Brennan, Jr.

Justice Abe Fortas

# data[].attributes.body
-  Ernesto Miranda had been arrested on the charges of rape and kidnapping after he was brought to the police station to be interrogated he incriminated himself through his confession which he signed.
- However at the time of his interrogation and written confession he was not made aware of his rights to an attorney and to remind silent.
- Then this confession was used as evidence in his trial that got him convicted and sentenced.

# data[].attributes.headline
A bit of additional background on this case 

# data[].attributes.subject
A bit of additional background on this case 

# data[].attributes.body
This case is a consolidation of a total for four cases which include
- Vignera v. New York
-California v. Stewart
-Westover v. United States
and Miranda's case

this happened because it was essentially she same issue throughout all of these cases happening all over the country

# data[].attributes.body
(justices on the Dissent)
Justice Tom C. Clark, Jusice John Marshall Harlan II, Justice Byron R. White, and Justice Potter Stewart
- Justice Tom C. Clark
Justice Clark argues the Majorities opinion is an unnecessarily strict interpretation of the 5th amendment.
- John Marshall Harlan II
Justice Harlan felt that the majorities opinion was a prime example of impermissible judicial activism taking place and because it lacks the support  of the actual text of the constitution or any other law he said that this was reducing the legitimacy of the constitutional law overall.
- Byron Raymond White
White also believed that the constitution did not have any textual foundation that backed the Majorities opinion and it also lacked in court precedents he also was concerned that I t could eat to serious criminals being able to escape justice.

# data[].attributes.body
Arizona Supreme Court
they reaffirmed his guilty verdict and that he wasn't violated because he did not specifically request council

# data[].attributes.body
Chief Justice Earl Warren
stated that the defendants interrogation violated the fifth amendment and that there needed to be procedural safeguards put into place such as " A defendant was required to be warned before questioning that he had the right to remain silent, and that anything he said can be used against him in a court of law, he had the right to an attorney, and if he could not afford an attorney, one was to be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desired."

# data[].attributes.body
results in the Miranda warning
which means that whenever a person is arrested officers must say:
“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.”
and if they don't then whatever the accused does say can be thrown out and not be able to be used in court.

# data[].attributes.body
Does the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination extend to the police interrogation of a suspect?

The Fifth Amendment requires that law enforcement officials advise suspects of their right ot remain silent and to obtain an attorney during interrogations while in police custody.

5-4 decision

# data[].attributes.body
citing the transcript from interrogation room No. 2 where there is no point in which the defendant, Miranda is made aware  of his right specifically to remain silent or his right ot counsel.
- also citing the 5th amendment which says that "no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself"
and Miranda did incriminate himself because he didn't know of his 5th amendment rights.

# data[].attributes.body
This court case is an example of Judicial Activism because it upheld what the 5th amendment stated.

and since it went with constitutional issues and invalidated the lower courts ruling it is an example of Judicial Activism

It also did not use any court precedents only the interpretation of the 5th amendment

# data[].attributes.body
states that Miranda should not require a special rule for everyone
says that the rights were made aware just maybe not at the most appropriate time
he also cites the psychiatric reports done on Miranda and says that they didn't find any psychotic disorders on one of them and so he should have understood.
- they also cite the interrogation room transcripts at specific times and are saying that wording was sufficient enough to qualify as being warned of his rights
also talks about the ways that the fifth amendment can be interpreted saying what they officers said and what the amendment says overlap