Miranda v. Arizona

LOCATION: Phoenix, Arizona

DECIDED BY: Warren Court (1965-1967)

CITATION: 384 US 436 (1966)
ARGUED: Feb 28, 1966 / Mar 01, 1966 / Mar 02, 1966
DECIDED: Jun 13, 1966

Thurgood Marshall - Solicitor General, for the United States, 761
Duane R. Nedrud - for the National District Attorneys' Association, as amicus curiae
F. Conger Fawcett - for the petitioner, 761
Gary K. Nelson - for the respondent, 759
Gordon Ringer - for the petitioner, 584
John J. Flynn - for the petitioner, 759
Telford Taylor - for the State of New York as amicus curiae in all cases by special leave of the Court
Victor M. Earle, III - for the petitioner, 760
William A. Norris - for the respondent, 584
William I. Siegel - for the respondent, 760

Facts of the case

Miranda v. Arizona is a historical decision, revised by the Supreme Court of the USA in 1966. The key judgment point ruled that any evidence as justifiable as recognizable can be applied in the judge only if the accused was acknowledged of his right to meet with the attorney and right not to testify against himself before the interrogation.

This case consists of four different prosecutions.

The first one was Miranda v. Arizona. The defendant was questioned by two police officers after being seen by the witness. After two-hours questioning, he confirmed his guilt and signed the statement, that all was confirmed the jury decision. It imposed his guilt in kidnapping and rape and penalty in 30 years imprisonment. Then in the state appeal trial this decision was not considered as upheld with violation of suspect`s fundamental rights.

The plaintiff filed an appellation to US Supreme Court, which raised up the issue whether the testimonies were obtained accordingly to the Fifth Amendment. The judges concluded that this constitutional right is aimed to guarantee the legitimate and fair process of interrogation and to prevent the self-incrimination. Following from that any testimonies can be used for decision-making if they were obtained not voluntary or without the free consent of the defendant.

In this case study, the fact was confirmed that Miranda was not informed of possibility to use his right to the advocacy, and that all his testimonies can be used against him in the incriminatory process and therefore made it and considered his guilt under pressure without his free agree on it.

The case brief explains that the Supreme Court revised previous ruling and three other ones that were judgments: of the New York Court of Appeals in Vignera, of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Westover, and of the Supreme Court of California in Stewart, where it confirmed the order.

It was the landmark case implemented the term Miranda rights that were the guarantee of free, fair interrogation in any conditions with a possibility to talk before that with the attorney and don`t testify against yourself.


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

Media for Miranda v. Arizona

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - March 01, 1966 in Miranda v. Arizona
Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - March 02, 1966 in Miranda v. Arizona

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - February 28, 1966 in Miranda v. Arizona

Earl Warren:

Number 759, Ernesto Miranda, Petitioner, versus Arizona.

We'll wait just a few moments until they get seated.

Mr. Flynn, you may proceed now.

John J. Flynn:

Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the court.

This case concerned itself with the conviction of a defendant of two crimes of rape and kidnapping, the sentences on each count of 20 to 30 years to run concurrently.

I should point out to the court in an effort to avoid possible confusion, that the defendant was convicted in a companion case of the crime of robbery in a completely separate and independent act.

However, the Supreme Court of the State of Arizona treated that conviction as a companion case in a companion decision, and portions of that record have been appended to the record in this case as it bears on the issue before the Court.

Now the issue before the Court is the admission in evidence of the defendant's confession under the facts and circumstances of this case over the specific objections of his trial counsel that it had been given in the absence of counsel.

The trial court in June of 1963, prior to this Court's decision in Escobedo, allowed the confession into evidence.

The Supreme Court of the State of Arizona in April of 1965, after this Court's decision in Escobedo, affirmed the conviction and the admission of the confession in evidence.

This Court has granted us review.

The facts in the case indicate that the defendant was a 23-year-old, Spanish-American extraction, that on the morning of March 13, 1963, he was arrested at his home, taken down to the police station by two officers named Young and Cooley.

That at the police station, he was immediately placed in a line-up, he was there identified by the prosecutrix in this case and later identified by the prosecutrix in the robbery case.

Immediately after the interrogations, he was taken into the police confessional at approximately 11:30 a.m. and by 1:30 they had obtained from him an oral confession.

William J. Brennan, Jr.:

Well, what's a “police confessional”?

John J. Flynn:

The interrogation room, described in the transcript as Interrogation Room No. 2, if Your Honor please.

He had denied his guilt, according to the officers, at the commencement of the interrogation, by 1:30 he had confessed.

I believe that the record indicates that in no time during the interrogation, and prior to his confession, his oral confession, was he advised either of his rights to remain silent, or his right to counsel, or of his right to consult with counsel, nor indeed, was such the practice in Arizona at that time as admitted by the officers in their testimony.

The defendant was then asked to sign a confession to which he agreed.

The form handed to him to write on contained a typed statement as follows which precedes his handwritten confession - “I, Ernesto A. Miranda, do hereby swear that I make this statement voluntarily and of my own free will, with no threats, coercion, or promises of immunity, and with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me.”

This statement was read to him by the officers, and he confessed in his own handwriting.

Throughout the interrogation, the defendant did not request counsel at any time.

In due course, the trial court appointed counsel to defend him in both cases and the defense counsel requested a psychiatric examination, which has been made a court the -- and the medical report has been made a portion of the transcript of the record in this case as it enlightens us to a portion or some of the factual information surrounding the defendant.

Abe Fortas:

Mr. Flynn, I'm sorry to interrupt you but you said that he was not -- that Miranda was not told that he might remain silent.

Did you say that?

John J. Flynn:

That is correct --

Abe Fortas:

Is there a dispute --

John J. Flynn:

-- Your Honor.

Abe Fortas:

-- as to that?

John J. Flynn:

Yes, there is, Your Honor, and I believe it arises as a result of the appendix in the robbery conviction.