Miranda v. Arizona by Kaycie Springer

Key People of The Case

springer24_1 — 2025-02-27 20:09:29 UTC

Miranda
Arizona

Key Facts

springer24_1 — 2025-02-27 20:11:41 UTC

On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in his house and brought to the police station where he was questioned by police officers in connection with a kidnapping and rape. After two hours of interrogation, the police obtained a written confession from Miranda. 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 Miranda’s constitutional rights were not violated because he did not specifically request counsel.

Question

springer24_1 — 2025-02-27 20:13:54 UTC

Does the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination extend to the police interrogation of a suspect?

springer24_1 — 2025-02-27 20:18:21 UTC

Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered the opinion of the 5-4 majority, concluding that defendant’s interrogation violated the Fifth Amendment. To protect the privilege, the Court reasoned, procedural safeguards were required. 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. A defendant was required to be told that 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.

This case represents the consolidation of four cases, in each of which the defendant confessed guilt after being subjected to a variety of interrogation techniques without being informed of his Fifth Amendment rights during an interrogation.

Link

springer24_1 — 2025-02-27 20:18:56 UTC

Movie Trailer

springer24_1 — 2025-03-04 05:56:23 UTC