Basic+Facts

Basic Facts

Presents the Supreme Court of the United States case of Miranda v. Arizona which was argued in 1966. How the defendants were questioned by police without being informed of their rights; The rights of the defendants to have been informed of their rights; Opinions of judges of the Supreme Court including Chief Justice Warren; Other cases cited in Warren's opinion; Use of the Fifth Amendment. []

Who: ERNESTO A. ** MIRANDA ** Chief Justice Earl Warren

[|http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=6&sid=691bd8a3-584e-45c8-a518-461afccf73b2%40sessionmgr14&hid=103&bdata=JmF1dGh0eXBlPWdlbyZnZW9jdXN0aWQ9Y2pybGMwODUmc2l0ZT1laG9zdC1saXZl#db=f5h&AN=21212814]

When: ARGUED FEB. 28, MARCH 1 AND 2, 1966. DECIDED JUNE 13, 1966. Rehearing Denied No. 584 Oct. 10, 1966.

[|http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=6&sid=691bd8a3-584e-45c8-a518-461afccf73b2%40sessionmgr14&hid=103&bdata=JmF1dGh0eXBlPWdlbyZnZW9jdXN0aWQ9Y2pybGMwODUmc2l0ZT1laG9zdC1saXZl#db=f5h&AN=21212814]

Where: Arizona Supreme Court California Supreme Court

[|http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=6&sid=691bd8a3-584e-45c8-a518-461afccf73b2%40sessionmgr14&hid=103&bdata=JmF1dGh0eXBlPWdlbyZnZW9jdXN0aWQ9Y2pybGMwODUmc2l0ZT1laG9zdC1saXZl#db=f5h&AN=21212814]

Decision: The Court held that “there can be no doubt that the Fifth Amendment privilege is available outside of criminal court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way from being compelled to incriminate themselves.” As such, “the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.” The Court further held that “without proper safeguards the process of in-custody interrogation of persons suspected or accused of crime contains inherently compelling pressures which work to undermine the individual’s will to resist and to compel him to speak where he would otherwise do so freely.” Therefore, a defendant “must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.” The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Arizona in Miranda, reversed the judgment of the New York Court of Appeals in Vignera, reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Westover, and affirmed the judgment of the Supreme Court of California in Stewart.

[]