Miranda v. Arizona Case Brief

Facts of the case

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.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.

Why is the case important?

The defendants offered incriminating evidence during police interrogations without prior notification of their rights under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution (the “Constitution”).

Question

Whether the government is required to notify the arrested defendants of their Fifth Amendment constitutional rights against self-incrimination before they interrogate the defendants?

ANSWER

The government needs to notify arrested individuals of their Fifth Amendment constitutional rights, specifically: their right to remain silent an explanation that anything they say could be used against them in court their right to counsel and their right to have counsel appointed to represent them if necessary. Without this notification, anything admitted by an arrestee in an interrogation will not be admissible in court.

CONCLUSION

As a constitutional prerequisite to the admissibility of statements made under custodial interrogation, the suspect must, in the absence of a clear, intelligent waiver of the constitutional rights involved, be warned prior to questioning that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. Evidence obtained as a result of interrogation cannot be used against a defendant at trial unless the prosecution demonstrated the warnings were given, and knowingly and intelligently waived. The confession of Miranda which was obtained without having appraised him of his rights to remain silent and counsel violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and cannot be admitted into evidence against him.

  • Advocates: John J. Flynn for the petitioner, 759 Victor M. Earle, III for the petitioner, 760 F. Conger Fawcett for the petitioner, 761 Gordon Ringer for the petitioner, 584 Gary K. Nelson for the respondent, 759 William I. Siegel for the respondent, 760 Thurgood Marshall Solicitor General, for the United States, 761 William A. Norris for the respondent, 584 Telford Taylor for the State of New York as amicus curiae in all cases by special leave of the Court Duane R. Nedrud for the National District Attorneys’ Association, as amicus curiae
  • Petitioner: Miranda
  • Respondent: Arizona
  • DECIDED BY:Warren Court
  • Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Citation: 384 US 436 (1966)
Argued: Feb 28 – 2, 1966
Decided: Jun 13, 1966
Miranda v. Arizona Case Brief