Self-Incrimination, Due Process
“
. . . 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.”
— Chief Justice Earl Warren, speaking for the majority
Ernesto Miranda was arrested after a crime victim identified him, but police officers questioning
him did not inform him of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, or of his Sixth
Amendment right to the assistance of an attorney. While he confessed to the crime, his attorney
later argued that his confession should have been excluded from trial. The Supreme Court agreed,
deciding that the police had not taken proper steps to inform Miranda of his rights.
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
www.LandmarkCases.org
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
This .pdf contains printable versions of the Street Law-developed teaching materials on
www.LandmarkCases.org. The student handouts are ready to print, copy, and use. All links to
external resources are hyperlinked within this .pdf, but the resources themselves do not appear.
Note: When opening the hyperlinks in this .pdf, right click on the link and select the “Open link in
browser” option.
Contact:
If you have questions or comments about these materials, please contact:
 Ethan Kennedy
Program Coordinator | Street Law, Inc.
ekennedy@streetlaw.org
301.589.1130 ext. 231
Terms of use:
These terms of use (the “Terms”) govern your use of Street Law, Inc.’s (“Street Law”) website (the
“website”). Please read these terms carefully before using the website as they create a legally binding
contract between you and Street Law. By accessing, browsing, or otherwise using the website, you
acknowledge that you have read, understood, and agree to be bound by these terms that may be
made by Street Law. You also represent and warrant that your use of the web site will comply with
any and all applicable laws and regulations. If at any time you do not agree to these terms, including
as amended by Street Law at its sole discretion from time to time, you should immediately terminate
your use of this website.
www.LandmarkCases.org and www. StreetLaw.org are owned and operated by Street Law. All
materials on the website, including, but not limited to, the audio, video and audiovisual content,
visual interfaces, interactive features, information, graphics, design, compilation, computer code,
products, software, services, and all other elements of the website that are provided by Street
Law (“Street Law Materials”), are protected by United States copyright, trade dress, patent,
and trademark laws, international conventions, and all other relevant intellectual property and
proprietary rights, and applicable laws. All Street Law Materials contained on the website are the
property of Street Law or its subsidiaries or affiliated companies and/or third-party licensors. All
trademarks, service marks, and trade names contained in the Street Law Materials or on the website
are proprietary to Street Law or its affiliates and/or third-party licensors.
Street Law, Inc. authorizes users of www.LandmarkCases.org to download, distribute, copy, link
to, and/or reproduce the Street Law Materials found on this site for non-commercial educational
use only. Other uses are prohibited.
As a courtesy, Street Law, Inc. request that the following copyright acknowledgement (found on
the footer of the printable materials) remain present on all copies: © 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the
Supreme Court Historical Society
You can read StreetLaw.org’s complete terms of use here: www.streetlaw.org/termsofuse
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
www.LandmarkCases.org
A note about the printed materials:
www.LandmarkCases.org
Background
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Background Summary & Questions (•••)
Ernesto Miranda was a poor Mexican immigrant living in Phoenix, Arizona, in 1963. Miranda was
arrested after a crime victim identified him in a police lineup. Miranda was charged with rape and
kidnapping and interrogated for two hours while in police custody. The police officers questioning
him did not inform him of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, or of his Sixth
Amendment right to the assistance of an attorney.
As a result of the interrogation, he confessed in writing to the crimes with which he was charged.
His written statement also included an acknowledgement that he was aware of his right against selfincrimination. During his trial, the prosecution used his confession to obtain a conviction, and he
was sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison on each count.
Miranda’s defense attorney appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court. His attorney argued that his
confession should have been excluded from trial because he had not been informed of his rights,
nor had an attorney been present during his interrogation. The police officers involved admitted
that they had not given Miranda any explanation of his rights. They argued, however, that because
Miranda had been convicted of a crime in the past, he must have been aware of his rights. The
Arizona Supreme Court denied his appeal and upheld his conviction.
The case comes down to this fundamental question: What is the role of the police in protecting the
rights of the accused, as guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution? The
Fifth Amendment states that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness
against himself. . . .” The Sixth Amendment states that, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused
shall enjoy the right . . . to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.” The Supreme Court of the
United States had made previous attempts to deal with these issues. In Brown v. Mississippi (1936),
the Court had ruled that the Fifth Amendment protected individuals from being forced to confess.
In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), the Court held that persons accused of felonies have a fundamental
right to an attorney, even if they cannot afford one. In 1964, after Miranda’s arrest, the Court
ruled that when an accused person is denied the right to consult with his attorney, his or her Sixth
Amendment right to counsel is violated (Escobedo v. Illinois). But do the police have an obligation
to ensure that the accused person is aware of these rights? If so, at what point in the criminal justice
process must the defendant learn of these rights?
In 1965, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear Miranda’s case. At the same time,
the Court agreed to hear three similar cases, Vignera v. New York, Westover v. United States, and
California v. Stewart. The Court combined the four cases. Since Miranda was listed first among the
four cases considered by the Court, the decision came to be known by that name. The decision in
Miranda v. Arizona was handed down in 1966.
Questions to Consider
1. What rights of the accused does the Fifth Amendment protect? The Sixth Amendment?
(Continued on next page)
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
BACKGROUND
2. How might knowledge of these rights have changed what Ernesto Miranda did when the police
questioned him?
3. Individual rights must be balanced against the values of society at large. For instance, the
right to free speech must be balanced against our desire for an orderly society. This is why
demonstrations, while protected by the First Amendment, can have certain restrictions placed on
them. In Miranda, what values must be balanced against the right against self-incrimination and
the right to counsel?
4. You are probably learning about the rights of the accused in a government or history class. Some
would argue that it is the individual’s responsibility to know what his or her rights are under the
Constitution, and the government can assume that accused persons know their rights without
informing them. Do you think the government should have to inform each individual who is
arrested of his or her rights? Why or why not?
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
BACKGROUND
Background Summary & Questions (••)
Ernesto Miranda was a poor Mexican immigrant living in Phoenix, Arizona in 1963. A Phoenix
woman was kidnapped and raped. She identified Miranda in a police lineup. Miranda was arrested,
charged with the crimes, and questioned by the police for two hours. The police officers questioning
him did not inform him of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination or of his Sixth
Amendment right to the assistance of an attorney. The Fifth Amendment states that no person “shall
be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. . . .” The Sixth Amendment states
that, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to have the assistance of
counsel for his defense.”
As a result of the questioning, Miranda confessed in writing to the crimes. His statement also said
that he was aware of his right against self-incrimination. During his trial, the prosecution used his
confession to obtain a conviction, and he was sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison on each count.
Miranda appealed his case to the Arizona Supreme Court. His attorney argued that his confession
should have been excluded from trial because he had not been informed of his rights, nor had an
attorney been present during his interrogation. The police officers involved admitted that they had
not given Miranda any explanation of his rights. The state argued, however, that because Miranda
had been convicted of a crime in the past, he must have been aware of his rights. The Arizona
Supreme Court denied Miranda’s appeal and upheld his conviction.
The case comes down to this fundamental question: What is the role of the police in protecting the
rights of the accused, as guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution? The
Supreme Court of the United States had made previous attempts to deal with these issues. The Court
had already ruled that the Fifth Amendment protected individuals from being forced to confess.
They had also held that persons accused of serious crimes have a fundamental right to an attorney,
even if they cannot afford one. In 1964, after Miranda’s arrest, but before the Court heard his case,
the Court ruled that when an accused person is denied the right to consult with his attorney, his
or her Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of a lawyer is violated. But do the police have an
obligation to ensure that the accused person is aware of these rights before they question that person?
In 1965, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear Miranda’s case. At the same time,
the Court agreed to hear three similar cases. The Court combined all the cases into one case. Since
Miranda was listed first among the four cases considered by the Court, the decision came to be
known by that name. The decision in Miranda v. Arizona was handed down in 1966.
Questions to Consider
1. What rights of the accused does the Fifth Amendment protect? The Sixth Amendment? (Continued on next page)
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
BACKGROUND
2. If the police had informed Ernesto Miranda of these rights, do you think he might have done
anything differently? 3. Individual rights must be balanced against the values of society at large. For instance, the
right to free speech must be balanced against our desire for an orderly society. This is why
demonstrations, while protected by the First Amendment, can have certain restrictions placed on
them. In Miranda, what values or goals of society must be balanced against the right against selfincrimination and the right to counsel? 4. You are probably learning about the rights of the accused in a government or history class. Some
would argue that it is the individual’s responsibility to know what his or her rights are under the
Constitution, and the government can assume that accused persons know their rights without
informing them after they are arrested. Do you think the government should have to inform
each individual who is arrested of his or her rights? Why or why not?
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
BACKGROUND
Background Summary & Questions (•)
Ernesto Miranda was a poor Mexican immigrant who lived in Arizona in 1963. A woman accused
Miranda of committing a crime against her. The police arrested Miranda and asked him questions
about the crime for two hours.
In the United States, people who are accused of crimes have certain rights granted by the
Constitution. The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution says that they have the right to be silent.
The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution says that they have the right to have a lawyer to help
defend themselves.
The police did not tell Miranda that he had these rights when they arrested him. After the police
were finished asking Miranda questions, he signed a confession. The police used his confession in the
trial and Miranda was convicted of the crime. The judge decided he should serve 20 to 30 years in
prison for each crime.
Miranda appealed his case to the highest court in Arizona, called the Supreme Court of Arizona.
His attorney argued that his confession should not have been used as evidence in his trial because
Miranda had not been informed of his rights, and no attorney had been present to assist him during
his interrogation. The Arizona Supreme Court denied his appeal and upheld Miranda’s conviction.
The Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear Miranda’s case. The decision in Miranda v.
Arizona was handed down in 1966.
Questions to Consider
1. What rights of the accused does the Fifth Amendment protect? The Sixth Amendment? 2. If the police had informed Ernesto Miranda of these rights, do you think he would have done
anything differently? (Continued on next page)
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
BACKGROUND
3. This case involves balancing the rights of the accused against society’s need to to fight crime.
Could informing accused persons of their rights hurt the ability of the police to fight crime? Why
or why not? 4. Do you think that informing people of their rights when they are accused of crimes helps protect
innocent citizens? Why or why not?
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
BACKGROUND
Important Vocabulary (•••/••)
 immigrant (to immigrate)
Define:
Use in a sentence:
 accused (to accuse)
Define:
Use in a sentence:
 confession
Define:
Use in a sentence:
 appealed (to appeal)
Define:
Use in a sentence:
 interrogation (to interrogate)
Define:
Use in a sentence:
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
BACKGROUND
Important Vocabulary (•)
 immigrant (to immigrate)
Definition: A person who leaves one country to settle permanently in another country
Express this term in your own words or in a drawing:
 accused (to accuse)
Definition: To formally blame someone with a wrongdoing or crime
Express this term in your own words or in a drawing:
 confession
Definition: A statement in which a person admits to being guilty of a wrongdoing or crime
Express this term in your own words or in a drawing:
(Continued on next page)
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
BACKGROUND
 appealed (to appeal)
Definition: To formally request that a lower court decision be examined and reconsidered by a higher
court
Express this term in your own words or in a drawing:
 interrogation (to interrogate)
Definition: To ask questions formally or officially
Express this term in your own words or in a drawing:
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
BACKGROUND
Legal Concepts
Legal Concept
Relevant Landmark Cases
Federalism (Findlaw.com)




Marbury v. Madison
McCulloch v. Maryland
Gibbons v. Ogden
U.S. v. Nixon
Separation of Powers & Checks and Balances (FindLaw)


Marbury v. Madison
U.S. v. Nixon





Dred Scott v. Sanford
Plessy v. Ferguson
Korematsu v. U.S.
Brown v. BOE
Regents of the U. of California v. Bakke
National Supremacy (FindLaw)



McCulloch v. Maryland
Gibbons v. Ogden
U.S. v. Nixon
Judicial Review (FindLaw)

Marbury v. Madison
Due Process (Cornell Law)



Dred Scott v. Sanford
Mapp v. Ohio
Gideon v. Wainwright
Due Process, Police Interrogation and SelfIncrimination (FindLaw)

Miranda v. Arizona
Commerce Clause (FindLaw)


McCulloch v. Maryland
Gibbons v. Ogden
Necessary and Proper Clause (FindLaw)

McCulloch v. Maryland
Equal Protection (FindLaw)
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
BACKGROUND
How the Case Moved through the Court System
Supreme Court of the United States
Reversed the Arizona Supreme Court and held that statements
obtained from defendants during interrogations in police-dominated
atmosphere without full warning of right to remain silent and right to
counsel violated the Fifth and Sixth Amendments and were
inadmissible.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
Supreme Court of the Arizona
Affirmed the conviction and held that Miranda's constitutional rights
were not violated in obtaining the confession and admitting it at
trial.
State v. Miranda (1965)
Superior Court, Maricopa County
Conviction was entered against Miranda for kidnapping and rape on
the basis of a written confession that was admitted into evidence
despite defense objections that Miranda had not been informed of
his right to an attorney and his right to remain silent during the
police interrogation.
State v. Miranda (1965)
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
BACKGROUND
www.LandmarkCases.org
Teaching
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona: A Primer
Constitutional Foundations of Miranda
The Miranda case dealt with the admissibility of statements made during custodial interrogation
under the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against compelled self-incrimination. Under Miranda, a
person in custody must be told of the right to remain silent and warned that any statements can and
will be used against the individual in court. Recognizing that even this warning will not by itself
fully protect the average citizen from the pressures of custodial interrogation, the Supreme Court
also requires that persons in custody be given the right to consult with a lawyer before and during
interrogation and that this right to counsel be included in the warnings given by the police. Unless
the person being interrogated receives the required warnings and waives their right to silence and
counsel, no statements they make may be used in court.
When the Miranda rules are not followed, statements made by a suspect are not allowed as evidence
for three reasons:
1. to avoid the risk that statements were forced in violation of the defendant's Fifth Amendment
rights;
2. to encourage officers to comply with the Miranda rules, thereby lessening the future likelihood of
compelled self-incrimination; and
3. to discourage any police practices that tended to compel confessions from suspects.
The Constitution does not explicitly require such warnings or the exclusion of statements given
in the absence of such warnings and waiver. However, a majority of the Court viewed custodial
interrogations as an extremely intimidating and potentially unfair procedure. Fearing that the Fifth
Amendment would become meaningless without warning suspects and informing them of the right
to counsel, the Court determined that evidence which was the product of a confession without these
warnings could not be used at trial. Textualists, those advocating a strictly text-based interpretation
of the Constitution, criticize this methodology as judicial creation of rights.
The Four Miranda Warnings
If Miranda applies, a suspect must be given warnings before being questioned which indicate:
1. You have the right to remain silent.
2. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.
3. You have the right to an attorney.
4. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.
(Continued on next page)
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
TEACHING
Is Miranda Applicable?
Miranda does NOT apply unless a person is in custody and subjected to interrogation by a law
enforcement officer.
1. Custody
Definitions:
 Custody requires a significant deprivation of liberty.
 A person is in custody only if they are subjected to either formal arrest or its functional
equivalent.
 Formal arrest—occurs when a person is explicitly told they are being placed under arrest or
is booked at the stationhouse.
 Functional equivalent—occurs when a suspect is “deprived of his freedom of action in any
significant way.”
Consider a reasonable person under the same conditions of the suspect:
 Would a reasonable person under the same circumstances believe they were free to leave? (In
other words: what would an average or typical member of the community think under the same
circumstances?)
 The Court is not trying to figure out what this particular suspect thought.
2. Interrogation by a law enforcement officer
Even if the person is in custody, Miranda only applies if the suspect was interrogated by known law
enforcement officers.
Definitions:
 Interrogation—includes any direct questioning by officers about a crime under investigation
and more subtle statements or conduct that are the functional equivalent of direct questioning
 The functional equivalent of direct questioning is any speech or actions by an officer that
they should have known were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.
Determining the functional equivalent:
 Reasonably likely:
 Courts will deem it “interrogation” only if officers knew or should have known an
incriminating response was reasonably likely. (Note: What the officer should have known is
judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer in the same situation.)
 Officer's intent:
 Courts will probably consider it to be interrogation if the officer actually intended that
their words or conduct would elicit an incriminating response.
(Continued on next page)
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
TEACHING
 Officer's knowledge of the suspect:
 Courts will usually treat it as interrogation if an officer was aware of —and exploited—a
suspect’s unusual weakness or fear.
Spontaneous, volunteered statements:
Spontaneous statements volunteered by the suspect without questioning are NOT considered the
product of interrogation even if the suspect was in custody at the time.
3. The Public Safety Exception to Miranda
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Miranda warnings are unnecessary prior to questioning that
is “reasonably prompted by a concern for the public safety”
 Consider whether a reasonable officer in the same position would conclude that there is a
significant threat to the public safety
 Example: interrogation that occurs as police try to locate a bomb they believe is set to go off
(See the flowchart for examining cases on the following page)
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
TEACHING
Miranda v. Arizona
TEACHING
Miranda Checklist
To accompany Miranda v. Arizona: A Primer
Was the person in custody?
Was it a formal arrest?
YES
Was the person directly questioned by a law
enforcement officer?
YES
NO
Was it the functional equivalent of arrest?
(i.e., a reasonable person would NOT have
felt free to leave)
NO
NO
Miranda warnings are NOT necessary.
YES
Did the officer say or do anything that he
or she intended to, knew, or should have
known was reasonably likely to elicit an
incriminating response?
Would a reasonable officer in the same
position conclude that there was a significant
threat to public safety and that the suspect
needed to be questioned immediately?
NO
Miranda warnings ARE necessary.
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
YES
NO
Miranda Warnings and the Bill of Rights
You may be familiar with the Miranda warnings from television and the movies. But what do they
really mean? What rights from the Bill of Rights are they designed to protect?
Miranda Warnings
1. You have the right to remain silent.
2. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.
3. You have the right to an attorney.
4. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.
Directions
For this activity, you will work in small groups. Each group will need a copy of the Miranda
warnings (found above) and a copy of the Bill of Rights. Your group should be prepared to share
what you do with the rest of the class, either on poster paper, an overhead projector, or the board.
First, using the chart on the next page, take each sentence of the Miranda warnings and translate
them into language that makes sense to you.
Next, match each phrase of your reworded Miranda warnings with the right in the Bill of Rights that
it is designed to protect. Discuss the following questions within your group:
1. Why is this right so important that the Supreme Court of the United States decided people
accused of crimes must be informed of it? 2. Does informing a person of the right provide absolute protection against a violation of that right? 3. How can police be certain that an accused person understands the meaning of the Miranda
Warnings?
(Continued on next page)
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
TEACHING
Sentence from Miranda
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.
Put in your own words
Bill of Rights
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
TEACHING
Miranda and the Exclusionary Rule
In the United States, one of the ways that the judicial branch checks the executive branch is through
the exclusionary rule. Under this policy, illegally obtained evidence is inadmissible in court. While
this applies primarily to Fourth Amendment protections against illegal search and seizure, it also
applies to the Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination. This means that if the police
fail to inform a suspect of his or her right to remain silent, and the suspect confesses, the confession
cannot be introduced as evidence in the suspect’s trial.
There has been a great deal of controversy over this, so in recent years, the Courts have relaxed the
standard a bit. For instance, courts now apply what is known as the “good faith” exception. Under
this standard, if police believed, for instance, that a search warrant was legal, but later found out that
it was technically flawed, the evidence obtained in the search would still be admissible.
In many democratic nations, violations of police procedure are handled quite differently. For
example, in England, if the police violate criminal procedure, they are reprimanded; they might be
punished or sued. However, the illegally obtained evidence is still admissible in court.
Questions to Consider
1. What is the purpose of the exclusionary rule? 2. What are some potential consequences of the exclusionary rule? 3. What is your opinion of how violations of police procedure are handled in England? (Continued on next page)
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
TEACHING
4. Should the United States keep or abolish the exclusionary rule? Explain your answer. 5. Some criticize the exclusionary rule as only protecting guilty people. Critics argue that it does
nothing, for example, to protect against an illegal search or a failure to give Miranda warnings
that produce no evidence or confession. Do you agree or disagree with this criticism? Explain.
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
TEACHING
Controversy Over the Court’s Decision
Directions
The Court’s decision in Miranda was met with criticism when it was handed down in 1966, and
it continues to be controversial today. The table below contains commentary on the decision and
its effect on law enforcement. For each quote decide whether the writer is supporting (pro) or
criticizing (con) the decision in Miranda.
Quote
1. ". . . the idealistic impulse toward protecting individuals from overbearing
state authority has resulted in a system where we deny people the
opportunity to take responsibility for their criminal acts. In our system, a
man or woman who takes responsibility must be crazy!"
2. "[T]here is little evidence that a significant number of guilty people are
going free because of the Miranda warning. The chief reason for this is
that, contrary to expectations, most people under arrest do not keep
their mouths shut and do not ask for a lawyer, even though it is almost
always in their interest to do so."
3. "Our citizens' confidence in the criminal justice system will be
strengthened by ensuring that the rules will be fair to crime victims as
well as suspects; will protect the public by helping convict those who
voluntarily confess their guilt; and will promote honesty and accuracy in
criminal trials by allowing the jury to hear all truthful evidence. . . A
society that beats confessions out of suspects has lost its morals. But a
society that rejects a suspect's voluntarily given confession has lost its
marbles.”
4. "When people around the world go to the movies, they see a bad guy
who has just murdered a nun, impaled a policeman and blown up a
school, collared by Eastwood or Stallone or Tommy Lee Jones. What
are the first words out of the good guy's mouth? 'You have the right to
remain silent.' The viewer has to wonder what kind of political paradise
America really is. People seeing this in Belgrade and Harare and Kuala
Lumpur, places where the innocent get whacked and beaten and
tortured at the whim of the authorities, can only be awestruck at a
country that treats even its monsters with such delicacy."
5. "Who invokes their right to remain silent or, especially, their right to
counsel? The usual suspects: the hardened criminals, the ones who
have been through the system many times before or who come into it
well-heeled and well-counseled. These offenders don't need the
warnings to understand their rights, and they are quick to assert them.
For all the rest, Miranda amounts to little more than red tape, just
another part of the ritual of putting on the handcuffs and making the trip
to the station . . . Miranda does little, if anything, to protect the most
vulnerable suspects."
(Continued on next page)
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Pro or Con?
Miranda v. Arizona
TEACHING
Quote
Pro or Con?
6. "In the common view, Miranda was necessary to protect accused
criminals from being forced to confess through coercion or torture.
Everyone is justifiably horrified at the possibility of punishing an innocent
man. In order to avoid this extreme injustice, it was argued, it might be
necessary at first to let a few obviously guilty murderers, rapists, and
robbers go free on 'technicalities,' while the police 'learned the ropes.' . .
. Yet twenty years later, the police still seem to 'make mistakes' all the
time. Confessions are continually ruled inadmissible because they have
been 'coerced.'. . . Investigations carried out under highly trained
prosecutors often fail to issue in a conviction because the investigators
did not 'observe the defendant's constitutional rights.'"
7. "Unless Miranda warnings are a totally impotent gesture . . . there must
be some percentage of suspects who invoke their right to remain silent
who would not have done so. Some subset of that group, in turn,
presumably would have gone on to make truthful confessions that would
not have been 'involuntary' in the classic beaten-out-of-him sense. And
in some subcategory of that subset, the confession would have been
crucial to building a case against that suspect."
Write a paragraph expressing your opinion about the decision:
Quote Sources
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Rothwax, Harold. Guilty: The Collapse of Criminal Justice. New York: Random House, 1996, p. 79.
“A Pillar of the Law Assailed.” Economist 12/11/99 v 353 i8149 p. 23.
Otis, William G. “Miranda: Morals and Marbles.” The Washington Post 24 November 1999: A23.
Krauthammer, Charles. “Supreme Hypocrisy.” The Washington Post 30 June 2000: A31.
Coughlin, Anne M., “Miranda Only Works for the Usual Suspects.” The Washington Post 12 December 1999: B1.
Tucker, William, “True Confessions: The Long Road Back from Miranda.” National Review 18 October 1985: 28.
Parloff, Roger, “Miranda on the Hot Seat.” New York Times Magazine 26 September 1999: 84-87.
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
TEACHING
Should the Miranda Warnings Be Required Police Procedure?
In this activity, you will consider the value of that warning from the perspective of various interest
groups. After considering these viewpoints, you will make your own decision and try to persuade
others to adopt your viewpoint.
Your teacher will assign you to one of the following groups:
 Law enforcement officials
 Civil/criminal rights group
 Federal prosecutors
 Defense attorneys
 Victims' rights group
 General public
Directions
1. Meet with the other members of your group. For the duration of this this activity, set aside
your personal opinion of Miranda warnings, and think about the case from the perspective of an
individual who is a member of your assigned group.
2. What is your position about the requirement of Miranda warnings? Consider the following:
 purpose of the Miranda warning and the extent to which it is successful in achieving that
goal
 extent to which the warning protects defendants and which defendants it protects
 extent to which the warning helps or hinders law enforcement officials
 the alternatives to reading the Miranda warning
 consequences for police, defendants, and the general public of overturning Miranda
 costs and benefits of the Miranda ruling for your group
3. As a group, write an outline of your position. Each person should make a copy of this outline, as
students will need their own copy for the next step. 4. Form a “jigsaw group” composed of students who represent each of the groups. Discuss your
viewpoints, keeping in mind that each individual should argue from the assigned perspective.
Can your new group reach a consensus? On what aspects of the issue do you agree? On which
aspects do you disagree? All members of the group should take notes. 5. The teacher will conduct a discussion to debrief the class.
(Extension activity continued on next page)
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
TEACHING
For Extension
Now that you have heard many different perspectives on the issue, you are in a position to develop
your own, educated opinion regarding the requirement that suspects be read the Miranda warning.
Convince other members of the general public to adopt your personal viewpoint on this issue by
completing one of the assignments below. In your product, clearly state and support your position.
 Write an editorial.
 Create a political cartoon.
 Write a speech to be delivered to an audience. On a separate sheet of paper, write a paragraph
in which you describe the target audience and the speech techniques used.
 Create a brochure or print advertisement. Your brochure should contain visuals and text.
On a separate sheet of paper, write a paragraph in which you explain the message, the target
audience, and the propaganda techniques used.
 Create a storyboard for a television commercial. On a separate sheet of paper, write a
paragraph in which you explain the message, the target audience, the propaganda techniques,
and the video and audio techniques used.
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
TEACHING
Beyond Miranda
In the time since Miranda was decided in 1966, the Supreme Court of the United States has decided
several cases directly related to the issues in the Miranda case. Below are brief descriptions of the
issues presented to the justices in several of these cases. How would you decide these cases if you
were a Supreme Court justice? For the purpose of this exercise, you should assume that you cannot
overturn the Miranda decision.
First, let’s review the main points of the Miranda decision, written by Chief Justice Earl Warren in
1966:
Persons in police custody must be warned of their rights before they are questioned, as follows:
 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.
The failure to warn the accused prior to interrogation leads to the presumption that statements
made by the accused were involuntary and must be suppressed because of the Fifth Amendment’s
protection against a person being “compelled in a criminal case to be a witness against himself.”
Post-Miranda Cases
Harris v. New York (1971)
Harris was arrested for selling heroin to an undercover detective. He had not been given his
Miranda warnings when he said to the police officers that he had made the sales at the request of the
undercover officer. At trial, the prosecution did not use the statement the defendant made during
their case. However, when he took the stand, he denied making the sales, contradicting what he had
previously told the police. The prosecutors then used his initial statement to impeach, or make less
credible, his testimony.
Should the prosecutors have been allowed to use Harris’s pre-Miranda statement at trial, or did its
use violate his constitutional rights?
Michigan v. Tucker (1974)
In this case, the accused was warned of his right against self-incrimination, but not of his right to a
lawyer. In the defendant’s statement, a person was identified as a potential witness. The defendant’s
lawyer argued that the witness could not testify, since the witness would be “derivative evidence”
arising from the defendant’s statement, which was not allowed in court because of the violation of
Miranda.
Since the statement itself could not be used in court against the defendant, could the witness still
testify, even though the witness would never have been found if not for the statement?
(Continued on next page)
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
TEACHING
New York v. Quarles (1984)
A woman told two police officers that she had been raped at gunpoint. She gave them a description
of the suspect and told them he had gone into a nearby supermarket. One of the officers
apprehended Quarles, the suspect, in the store, searched him, and found that he was wearing an
empty holster. The officer asked Quarles where his gun was and he told him. The officer arrested
Quarles and read him his Miranda rights.
Should the suspect’s statement about the gun be suppressed at trial, since it was made before the
Miranda warnings were given?
Oregon v. Elstad (1985)
Elstad was suspected of committing burglary. He was arrested in his home, and he made an
incriminating statement before being read his Miranda warnings. He was then taken to the police
station where the police read him his Miranda rights. He waived his Miranda rights and the police
questioned him; during the questioning, he confessed to the crime and signed a written confession.
Elstad’s first statement that he was involved in the crime was suppressed at trial, but his second
statement was used against him and he was convicted.
Should the second statement also be suppressed at trial?
Illinois v. Perkins (1990)
In this case, police informants posed as prisoners in order to obtain evidence of Perkins’ involvement
in a murder. Perkins made statements to the one of the “prisoners” implicating himself. This
information was subsequently used at trial and Perkins was convicted. There had been no Miranda
warning, since the defendant did not know he was speaking to someone acting on behalf of the
police.
Should the defendant’s incriminating statements have been allowed at trial, considering that they
were made without the defendant being warned of his rights?
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
TEACHING
Beyond Miranda: Case Decisions
Harris v. New York (1971)
The Court said that Miranda did not mean that evidence barred from use during the prosecution’s
case could not be used for any purpose. They said the Miranda protection could not be “perverted
into a license to use perjury by way of a defense, free from the risk of confrontation with prior
inconsistent utterances.”
Michigan v. Tucker (1974)
The Court ruled that the witness could testify. In this case they made a distinction between a
violation of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and a mere violation of the
Miranda rule. Since the defendant was warned about his right against self-incrimination, the Court
allowed the witness to testify.
Oregon v. Elstad (1985)
The Court ruled that admissions made prior to Miranda warnings must be suppressed, but later
statements, if made voluntarily, may be used in court. “[T]he mere fact that a suspect has made an
unwarned admission does not warrant a presumption of compulsion,” Justice O’Connor wrote.
Illinois v. Perkins (1990)
Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, held that conversations between suspects and undercover
officers are not held in a “police-dominated atmosphere” and therefore Miranda warnings are not
necessary. No coercion was possible because there was no official interrogation.
New York v. Quarles (1984)
The Court said there is a “public safety” exception which applies in this case. The police officer acted
to further public safety and therefore the statement made by the defendant telling of the location of
the weapon) before his Miranda rights were read to him was admissible in court.
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
TEACHING
A Real World Case Study: Homicide by David Simon
Directions
In this activity, you will consider one of the main points of Chief Justice Warren’s decision in
Miranda and how it relates to real-life police work as depicted in David Simon’s book about
Baltimore Police Department homicide detectives. You will examine passages and answer questions
in small groups. Finally, you will write a short essay in response to the prompt at the end of this
activity.
In his majority opinion in Miranda v. Arizona, Chief Justice Warren writes that one of the main
purposes of the Miranda warnings is “to make the individual more acutely aware that he is faced with
a phase of the adversary system-that he is not in the presence of persons acting solely in his interest.”
He also disapprovingly cites passages from police interrogation manuals that instruct police to
“persuade, trick, or cajole” suspects. Chief Justice Warren writes:
“any evidence that the accused was threatened, tricked, or cajoled into a waiver will, of course, show that
the defendant did not voluntarily waive his privilege. The requirement of warnings and waiver of rights is
a fundamental . . . and not simply a preliminary ritual to existing methods of interrogation.”
Questions to Consider
1. Why is it important that an accused person be aware that he or she is “faced with a phase of the
adversary system”, that is, that the police are not on his or her side? 2. Should the police be allowed to “persuade, trick, or cajole” people suspected of committing
crimes in order to get them to confess? 3. What is Chief Justice Warren’s goal in trying to ensure that defendants voluntarily waive their
privilege before being questioned? 4. Have you seen-either in real life, on television or in a movie-an instance of police interrogation
that you think violates the standard set by Chief Justice Warren in his opinion? If so, describe it.
(Continued on next page)
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
TEACHING
In 1991 David Simon, a Baltimore Sun reporter, wrote a book about the Baltimore Police
Department’s homicide squad. The book, Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets, was later adapted
for television.
Simon describes in his book how Baltimore homicide detectives deal with the requirements of the
Miranda decision. He writes that before a suspect is asked whether he wants to waive his rights
and talk about his case, the detective offers him a chance to tell his side of the story, warning that
asserting his rights will only make things worse:
“Once you up and call for that lawyer, son, we can’t do a damn thing for you. . . . [T]he next
authority figure to scan your case will be a tie-wearing, three-piece bloodsucker - a no-nonsense
prosecutor from the Violent Crimes Unit . . . And God help you then, son . . . . Now’s the time
to speak up . . . because once I walk out of this room any chance you have of telling your side of
the story is gone and I gotta write it up the way it looks. . . . And it looks right now [like] first- . . .
degree murder.”
Simon concludes that “the fraud that claims it is somehow in a suspect’s interest to talk with police
will forever be the catalyst in any criminal interrogation.” He says detectives try to get suspects to
speak by offering them “the Out.” Suspects must be “baited by detectives with something more
tempting than penitence. They must be made to believe that their crime is not really murder, that
their excuse is both accepted and unique, that they will, with the help of the detective, be judged less
evil than they truly are.” The goal is to get the suspect to believe the detective is on his side and will
help him, when in fact the detective is trying to get the suspect to confess.
Simons, David. Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets. New York: Ballantine Books, 1991.
Questions to Consider
1. Do the actions of Baltimore homicide detectives, as described by David Simon, seem to be in
compliance with Chief Justice Warren’s opinion in Miranda? Why or why not? 2. Do you think it is fair for police officers to deceive or trick suspects in custody? Why or why not?
If you do not think it is fair, can you think of circumstances when you think it would be fair? 3. How would strict compliance with Miranda change homicide interrogations as depicted in
David Simon’s book? (Continued on next page)
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
TEACHING
4. How would strict compliance with Miranda protect individual rights in homicide interrogations
as depicted in David Simon’s book?
Short Essay
Respond to the following statement in at least three paragraphs. Use what you have learned about the
Miranda case as evidence to support your thesis, either agreeing or disagreeing with the statement.
“The Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda restricts the ability of the police to fight crime.
Police officers are on the front lines in the fight against crime, and they should be allowed to
interrogate suspects as they best see fit. Society’s right to public safety is more important than
the rights of criminals.”
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
TEACHING
Should Miranda Be Overturned in Dickerson v. the United
States?
Background Reading
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court of the United States decided that when police arrest
a suspect and are about to question that individual, they must inform the suspect of his or
her constitutional rights to remain silent and to consult with an attorney prior to and during
interrogation. Through this decision, the Court hoped to alleviate what they perceived to be “the
inherent pressures of the interrogation atmosphere.” As Chief Justice Earl Warren pointed out, the
Court wanted to make sure that a suspect who waived his or her right to silence did so “voluntarily,
knowingly, and intelligently.”
If you watch television, you are probably familiar with the Miranda warning. What you may not
know is that in the case, Chief Justice Warren stressed that those exact words are not required, as
long as the words used are “fully as effective . . . in informing accused persons of their right of silence
and in affording a continuous opportunity to exercise it.” This meant that all states and the federal
government could actually decide for themselves how to inform suspects of their rights.
Section 3501 of the 1968 Crime Bill
To that end, in 1968, Congress passed a law which said that in determining whether or not
confessions are voluntary and admissible in Court, the reading of Miranda warnings is just one
of several factors that should be considered. Other factors the Court should think about include
the following: 1) whether any warnings were given, 2) the time that elapsed between arrest and
confession, and 3) whether the defendant knew with certainty that he could request a lawyer.
Missteps in any one of these areas would not necessarily result in the inadmissibility of the
confession. In essence, this made the admissibility of confessions hinge exclusively on whether or not
they were made “voluntarily.” This law was virtually ignored for decades because both Democrats and
Republicans questioned its constitutionality.
Dickerson v. United States (2000)
In 2000, a case that hinged on the constitutionality of the 1968 law came before the Supreme Court.
The case began when federal law enforcement officials followed a man suspected of driving the
getaway car in a bank robbery in Virginia to his home in Takoma Park, Maryland. He refused to let
them search his apartment, but while they were there, they noticed a large wad of money on his bed.
Though he wouldn’t allow a search, he did agree to accompany police to headquarters, where they
questioned him and told him they had gotten a warrant to search his home. He confessed. Later, he
claimed that he was not read his Miranda rights in a timely manner.
His lawyers presented this argument to the U.S. District Court, which agreed with him. As a result,
the District Court threw out his confession and the evidence found in his apartment. When the case
was appealed, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals cited the 1968 crime bill, saying that “technical
violations” of Miranda should no longer result in the inadmissibility of evidence.
(Continued on next page)
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
TEACHING
The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, which was faced with whether to let the decision made
by the Fourth Circuit stand, thus overturning the precedent that requires law enforcement officials to
read suspects the Miranda warnings.
Triad Activity: You Be the Judge (and the Lawyers)
1. After the class has read the material above, the class should divide into three groups of equal size.
 Group One will be composed of lawyers who will argue that the Supreme Court of the
United States should uphold the decision of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and
overturn (reverse the decision) Miranda v. Arizona.
 Group Two will be composed of lawyers who will argue that the Supreme Court of the
United States should overturn the decision of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and
affirm (keep the decision) Miranda v. Arizona.
 Group Three will be composed of justices on the Supreme Court of the United States who
will listen to arguments presented by the two sides and make a decision.
2. In order to begin preparing for the activity, all groups will answer the questions these questions. Record your group’s responses in your notebook or on a piece of paper.
 What are the competing interests that the Court needs to weigh in this case?
 What are the arguments for upholding Miranda v. Arizona and requiring that police read
suspects the Miranda warnings?
 What are the arguments for overturning Miranda v. Arizona?
 What are some potential consequences if Miranda was overturned and states could decide
for themselves how to inform suspects of their rights?
 Can the Court make a decision that overturns one of its earlier decisions? In this case,
should it?
3. Groups One and Two, the lawyers, will outline their arguments. Group Three, the Supreme
Court justices, will prepare questions to ask the lawyers. Again, all individuals will record these
questions in their notebooks or on a piece of paper.
4. The teacher will assign all students to a “triad” composed of one member from each of the
three groups. In this triad, the lawyers will each present their side of the case. The justice will
listen to the arguments and ask questions. The lawyers will be given an opportunity to respond
to the questions and to the arguments presented by the other side. The teacher can time these
arguments and questions to ensure efficient use of class time.
5. After both sides have presented their arguments and answered questions posed by the justice,
the justice will take some time to think about the case. The justice will then make a decision and
share that decision, including the reasoning behind it, with the lawyers.
6. The teacher will conduct a discussion to debrief the class.
(See the decision in Dickerson v. United States on the following page)
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
TEACHING
The Decision in Dickerson v. United States
The Majority Opinion
In the 7 to 2 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States found that the appeals court was
wrong. Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote that Miranda was a “constitutional decision” of the
Supreme Court and such decisions can not be overturned by a law passed by Congress. He said that
whether or not members of the Court agreed with the Miranda decision, it was now law and that
“the principles of stare decisis weigh heavily against overruling it now…” He noted that the Miranda
warnings are a routine police practice now and have become a part of our national culture.
The Dissenting Opinion
The dissenting justices disagreed. They felt that the Miranda warnings are not requirements under
the Constitution. They are procedural safeguards that were dictated by the Court in that decision.
Because the Miranda warnings are procedural safeguards and not constitutional mandates, Congress
has the authority to overrule and modify them. Since a law that dismisses Miranda warnings in some
instances doesn’t violate the Constitution, Congress had the authority to pass it.
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
TEACHING
Miranda Rights for Juveniles: Yarborough v. Alvarado
Directions
1. Read the synopsis of facts for Yarborough v. Alvarado.
2. Complete the legal arguments for each side using the graphic organizer.
3. Review the possible opinions as a class. Select the opinion you find most persuasive and articulate
reasons why.
4. Read the about the decision in Yarborough v. Alvarado and discuss which arguments appeared
most persuasive to the Court.
Synopsis of facts
Michael Alvarado was convicted of second-degree murder and robbery for his alleged role in a 1995
killing. Alvarado, who was not the triggerman, was convicted in large part because of incriminating
statements he made during a two hour interview with a police detective. At the time of the interview,
Alvarado was a 17-year-old high school student with no prior arrest record. The detective had
contacted Alvarado’s mother, who agreed to bring him to the police station for questioning. When
Alvarado arrived with his parents, the detective denied the parents’ request to remain with their son
during the interview. While they waited in the lobby, Alvarado was questioned alone for two hours.
He was not placed under arrest and was allowed to leave after the questioning ended. At no time
was Alvarado advised that he had a right to remain silent, a right to consult an attorney prior to
answering, or a right to leave the police station at any time. Alvarado alleges he was deprived of his
Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights in violation of Miranda v. Arizona.
Following his criminal conviction, Alvarado brought a petition in federal district court against
Yarborough, the warden of the prison where he was being held. The district court denied Alvarado’s
petition. However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Alvarado was “in
custody” when he was interrogated by police and, therefore, should have been read his Miranda
warnings. The Ninth Circuit insisted that federal criminal law treated children differently and this
principle should apply to Miranda custody determinations.
Graphic Organizer
Use the graphic organizer on the following page to list arguments for each side of the following legal
issue: In determining “custody” for purposes of Miranda, should a court apply a different
standard for juveniles?
(Continued on next page)
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
TEACHING
Arguments for Yarborough
Arguments for Alvarado
Possible Opinions
Opinion A
The Supreme Court established the legal principle that juvenile defendants are, in general, more
susceptible to police coercion than adults; as such, due process demands that a defendant’s juvenile
status be taken into consideration when determining the proper procedural safeguards that attach
to a custodial interrogation. During the last half century, the Court has consistently reaffirmed this
principle. If a juvenile is more susceptible to police coercion during a custodial interrogation, then
the same juvenile is also more susceptible to the impression that he is, in fact, in custody in the first
instance.
But the lower court failed to address how Alvarado’s juvenile status, including the involvement of
his parents at the behest of police, affected the “in custody” determination. Relevant Supreme Court
(Continued on next page)
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
TEACHING
precedents lead us to conclude that Alvarado’s youth and inexperience with the police are simply
too important to be ignored. Miranda warnings should have been given before the interrogation
took place. The Court of Appeals was correct in reversing the trial court’s conclusion that Miranda
warnings were not required.
Opinion B
The Court adopted Miranda to provide an additional degree of protection for the constitutional
rights to counsel and against self-incrimination. It does this by prohibiting evidence of any
confession given during a custodial interrogation from being heard at trial unless the defendant
was made aware of his rights in advance. Miranda notices are only required when the defendant is
in custody, and the goal of the protection is adequately served by an objective test for custody that
focuses only on the restrictive circumstances of the interview, rather than on the suspect’s perceptions
of them.
This Court has often noted that one of the principal advantages of Miranda is that it provides police
and courts with clear guidance about how custodial questioning must be conducted for statements
obtained to be admissible. Because of the considerable advantage afforded by the clear guidance
Miranda provides, this Court has stated that the “simplicity and clarity of the holding of Miranda”
are not to be compromised “absent a compelling justification.”
The facts of this case make clear that respondent was not in custody at the time of his interview.
There is no indication that he was present at the interview involuntarily, and he was not handcuffed,
arrested, or told he was not free to leave. [Alvarado] was interviewed by a single officer, and agreed at
trial that the encounter was a “friendly conversation” and was not confrontational. Taken as a whole,
the objective circumstances indicate that [Alvarado] was not subjected to the functional equivalent
of a formal arrest. The Ninth Circuit misapplied the law in considering Alvarado’s age as part of the
broader custody determination. Such consideration of age was beyond the clear weight of Supreme
Court precedent, therefore the Ninth Circuit was wrong to upset the state court’s ruling. Alvarado’s
conviction on the basis of his testimony is reinstated.
Yarborough v. Alvarado: Decision
Majority
Justice Kennedy delivered the majority opinion in a 5-4 decision that reversed the Ninth Circuit.
The majority found that the state criminal court that convicted Alvarado had reached a reasonable
conclusion that the minor was not in custody for Miranda purposes when he was interviewed. The
Court cited a number of factors that indicated that Alvarado was not in custody at the time he was
questioned, including the fact that he went to the station voluntarily, was never told he could not
leave, was not threatened by authorities, was told the interview would be brief, and was allowed to
return home afterwards. According to the Court, Miranda can be distinguished from other cases that
require special consideration of age for juvenile offenders.
The majority also stressed the importance of a clear rule for police to apply. Allowing different
standards for juveniles would make it more difficult for police to determine when Miranda warnings
are necessary.
(Continued on next page)
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
TEACHING
Concurrence
Though she joined the majority, Justice O’Connor wrote a separate, single paragraph to emphasize
her sense that in other cases the age of the defendant could be relevant to the custody determination.
She suggested that the failure to consider age could justify reversal in other circumstances. The fact
that Alvarado was 17 years old made a difference to her.
Dissent
Justice Breyer wrote a forceful dissent in which he criticized the majority’s characterization of the
facts. Justice Breyer framed the issue in the following way:
What reasonable person.brought to a police station by his parents at police request, put in a small
interrogation room, questioned for a solid two hours, and confronted with claims that there is strong
evidence that he participated in a serious crime, could have thought to himself, “Well, anytime I want to
leave I can just get up and walk out?”The dissent said that the involvement of Alvarado’s parents suggested
that his participation was not voluntary and that a two-hour meeting gave the appearance of custody. The
dissent also considered the many ways in which the court system treats juveniles differently, emphasizing
that confinement determinations for juveniles should also be treated differently.
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
TEACHING
Precedent and Stare Decisis
Part One: Personal Reflection
1. Think of a time when a parent, guardian, or teacher made a decision about something based on a
similar situation in the past. (At this point, don’t write anything down. Just think quietly.) 2. Now think about whether his or her decision was fair. Why or why not?
3. When your teacher asks, you may volunteer to tell about the example you thought of and to give
your opinion about whether the situation was handled fairly. (Please do not name names.)
4. Now think of a time when you believe your parent, guardian, or teacher should not have applied
the same old rules or reasons to a new situation. Was his or her response fair? Why or why not?
5. Finally, think about a time when your parent, guardian, or teacher seemed to ignore his or her
own previous decision. Did that seem fair? Why or why not?
Part Two: Class Discussion
Answer these questions with other students in your class:
1. What are the benefits and risks of sticking by the known rules?
2. What are the benefits and risks of changing the rules for new situations?
We have just been thinking and talking about something very similar to the term precedent, a court
decision that guides future cases with similar questions.
The Supreme Court justices wrestle with the issue of precedent on a daily basis, knowing that
their decisions will affect not just the people in a particular case, but potentially millions of other
Americans who could be in similar situations in the future. Their questions, like those in our
reflection activity, are typically about when precedents should be honored and when they should be
reversed. Different justices often have different views on this—some even change their views over
time.
The term stare decisis is a legal term from Latin that means “to stand by things decided.” This means
to apply precedent. (Continued on next page)
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
TEACHING
Part Three: What The Justices Think About Precedent And Stare Decisis
 You will be working with two other students on this assignment.  Divide up the quotes below so you each have the same number of quotes to work with. (If
necessary, you can double up and have two of you working on the same quote.)  Start by reading your quotes silently. As you read them, underline passages you think are
particularly important. Circle words or passages that you have questions about. Then try to
put it in your own words or summarize it.
 When all three of you finished reading the quotes, explain them to each other and then work
together to answer the questions at the bottom of the page.
Quote #1
Justices Sandra Day O’Conner and Stephen G. Breyer in a taped interview with students
participating in a question and answer session. When asked about what might influence the justices
to overturn a precedent, Justice O’Connor said: “Well I think you have to be able to persuade at least five members of this nine-member Court that an
earlier judgment and opinion decided by this Court is now clearly wrong. That is possible to do. We can
be persuaded at times that something we decided earlier has become, over time, no longer defensible.
And the most clear big example of that was in Brown v. Board of Education when the Supreme Court
decided to overrule the old Plessy v. Ferguson principle that you could have separate public facilities for
people based on race provided they were roughly the same. You know, the same school, one for people of
the black race, one for people of the white race. That’s what Plessy said was all right. The members of this
Court unanimously concluded that just was not valid and it overturned it, [Plessy.]
So what standard is required? It’s just a standard of persuading at least five members of the Court that an
earlier precedent is clearly wrong and shouldn’t remain the law of the nation.”
Quote #2
Justices Sandra Day O’Conner and Stephen G. Breyer in a taped interview with students
participating in a question and answer session. After Justice O’Connor’s answer about what might
influence the justices to overturn a precedent, Justice Breyer added:
“That last phrase [persuading at least five members of the Court that an earlier precedent is clearly wrong
and shouldn’t remain the law of the nation] is very important. Every one of us understands that if you
change the law too often, even when it was wrong before, people cannot live their lives. They can’t plan
how to live; they can’t plan their societies. So no one thinks just because a case is wrong that you are going
to overturn it. They have to both think it was wrong and think it’s harmful and causing a lot of trouble.
Now, if you said never overturn a case, we’d still live in a society that had racial segregation. That would
be terrible. So, of course, sometimes you have to overturn a case. But five people [justices] have to agree it
was wrong then and it’s wrong now and it’s causing a lot of harm to the point where even though people
have to plan their lives, we better get rid of it. That happens very rarely.”
(Continued on next page)
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
TEACHING
Quote #3
John Roberts at his United States Senate confirmation hearing, September 2005:
“… the principles of stare decisis look at a number of factors. Settled expectations is one of them…
Whether or not particular precedents have proved to be unworkable is another consideration on the
other side …I do think it is a jolt to the legal system when you overrule a precedent. Precedent plays an
important role in promoting stability and evenhandedness. Quote #4
Stephen Breyer, writing for the Court in Randall v. Sorrell, the Vermont campaign finance reform
decision, 2006:
“The Court has often recognized the ‘fundamental importance of stare decisis, the basic legal principle that
commands judicial respect for a court’s earlier decisions and the rules of law they embody. The court has
pointed out that stare decisis ‘promotes the evenhanded, predictable and consistent development of legal
principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the
judicial process.’ Stare decisis thereby avoids the instability and unfairness that accompany disruption of settled legal
expectations. For this reason, the rule of law demands that adhering to our prior case law be the norm. Departure from precedent is exceptional and requires special justification.”
Questions to Consider
Answer these with the two other students in your group.
1. Based on what you read, why is adhering to precedent (or stare decisis) important?
2. Based on what you read, what do you think would be acceptable reasons for reversing an existing
precedent?
3. What do you think the result would be if the Court ever abandoned the precedent set in the
Miranda case? Would that be a good or bad outcome? Explain your answer.
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
TEACHING
Teaching strategies used
 Case Study
 Jigsaw
 Scored Discussion
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
TEACHING
Case Study
Case studies require students to analyze problem situations and reach their own conclusions
concerning the outcome. Case studies can take many forms: legal cases based on written opinions
of courts; hypothetical situations involving some conflict or dilemma; and real-life situations drawn
from newspapers, magazines, books, or other sources. While case studies are generally presented in
written form, they can also be presented by use of an audiovisual medium such as a movie or tape
recording.
Whatever the source of the case, it will usually include the following elements:
 a description of the facts
 a statement of the issue or problem posed by the case
 a reference to the arguments or various positions that can be taken on the issue
 a decision or a result on the issue presented
 an explanation of the reasoning behind the decision.
Procedure
1. Select the Case Materials: Cases may be real or hypothetical, long or short, based on written
opinions of a court or derived from an everyday situation. 2. Review of Facts: The facts of the case serve as the basis for classroom discussion. Therefore, the
inquiry process should be started by carefully reviewing and clarifying all of the facts. Students
should be asked the following questions:
 What happened in this case?
 Who are the parties?
 What facts are important? Unimportant?
 Is any significant information missing?
 Why did the people involved act the way they did? 3. Frame the Issue: Students should pinpoint and discuss the issues or problems presented by the
case. The legal issue is the question of law on which resolution of the case turns. An issue should
be posed in the form of a question. While most cases revolve around a legal issue, students
should also consider issues of public policy, values in conflict, and practical reality. For example, a
case study involving abortion might involve the following issues:
 Legal: Is abortion legal? If so, under what circumstances?
 Public Policy: Should abortion be legal? Why or why not?
 Values in Conflict: Which value is more important, a woman’s right to privacy or an unborn
child’s right to life? Why?
 Practical: What are the options open to someone faced with an unwanted pregnancy? Where
can someone in this situation go for help and advice? (Continued on next page)
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
TEACHING
4. Discuss the Arguments: Once students have focused on the issues, they should develop and
discuss the arguments that can be made for and against each of the various points of view. When
discussing the arguments, students should consider questions such as the following:
 What are the arguments in favor of and against each point of view?
 Which arguments are most persuasive? Least persuasive? Why?
 What might be the consequences of each course of action? To the parties? To society?
 Are there any alternatives?
In discussing the various arguments it is important to foster a climate of acceptance and
openness. Students must know that all opinions are welcome and that their ideas will receive
a fair hearing and analysis no matter how controversial or touchy the issue. In other words,
students should be encouraged to listen to, consider, and evaluate all points of view 5. Reach a Decision: A decision is the answer to the issue or issues posed by the case. When
students are given the decision, as in a court case, they should be asked to evaluate it.
 Do they agree or disagree with it?
 A statement of the issue or problem posed by the case, a reference to the arguments or various
positions that can be taken on the issue What will the decision mean for the parties? For society? Students might be asked how they
would decide a case and why. After the students have reached their own conclusions, the teacher
can tell them the actual result or holding in the case, at which point students can compare their
own result to that of the court.
6. Variations: When conducting a case study, the teacher may wish to try one of the variations on
the case method. Typical variations include the following.
 Giving Students an Entire Case: (i.e., facts, issues, arguments, decisions, and reasoning). This
approach focuses on student identification and comprehension of the facts, issues, arguments,
decision, and student evaluation of the decision and the court’s reasoning.
 Giving Students Unmarked Opinions: (i.e., facts, issues, arguments, and unmarked judicial
opinions). Using this approach, students are not told which of the court opinions is the actual
holding of the court. Rather they are asked to select the opinion they agree with and explain
why. Later they can be given the actual holding and asked to compare their reasoning and
result against that of the court.
 Giving Students Only the Facts: With this approach, students are asked to identify and
formulate the issues, prepare arguments on each side, develop a decision, and then evaluate
their issues, arguments, and decision against the actual holding of the court. After giving out
only the facts, or the facts and the issue(s), many teachers organize students into “law firms,”
asking them to develop and rank for persuasiveness the arguments for each side.
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
TEACHING
Jigsaw
This strategy has students learn about a concept or case and then teach other students. Procedure
1. Select several concepts or cases that you want the students to grasp. You should select 3-6
concepts or cases. 2. Put the students into groups. If you select 3 topics, you need three students in each group, if
you select 4 topics, you need 4 students per group, etc. Assign a letter to each group. These are
the students’ HOME groups. Have them all write their home group letter at the top of their
worksheet. Then assign one student in each group to each case or concept. For example, if you
were doing a jigsaw with student speech cases, one student would be assigned to Hazelwood v.
Kuhlmeier, one to Tinker v. Des Moines, one to Bethel v. Frasier, etc.
3. Now have the students regroup by case or concept. All the students assigned to the first case
or concept in one area of the room, and the second in another area, the third in another area
and so on. These are the Expert Groups. If there are more than 4-6 students for each case or
concept, have them split into two or more expert groups. 4. Give each expert group a reading about their topic or case. It should be a page or less in length.
The expert groups should all read their material and then discuss it and answer any questions. They should then decide which portions of the material the students in the other groups need to
learn about. They should create a list of points to teach other students. 5. After the allotted expert time, ask students to return to their HOME (letter) groups. Each
student (or pair if you have uneven numbers) will be asked to spend 5-7 minutes teaching their
other group members about their case or concept. Other students should take notes and ask
questions.
6. At the conclusion, every student should have studied one case or concept in depth and learned
about several others from their HOME group members.
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
TEACHING
Scored Discussion
In a scored discussion, students participate in a formal dialogue on a controversial issue, or open
question, and are graded for their efforts. This is different than a debate, because students are not
necessarily expected to take fixed positions. In fact, changing one’s mind in light of the evidence that
emerges in the discussion is encouraged.
Students are marked according to the quality of their participation, with regard to behavior as well
as content. Generally, the teacher does not participate in the discussion, unless the students need a
point of fact clarified. The teacher does, however, guide a debriefing after the discussion.
For a scored discussion to work properly, students must be well prepared. This may include doing
a practice discussion with students so that they understand the criteria for their grades. A practice
discussion could ask students to spontaneously discuss a controversial issue within the school, such
as whether the school should have a dress code. After the discussion, the teacher could tease out the
positive aspects of the discussion and the negative aspects of the discussion, to come to a consensus as
to what constitutes a good discussion and how the students will be marked.
For example, students might receive positive marks for demonstrating skills such as:
 stating a position
 providing evidence for a position
 challenging another student’s use of evidence
 linking the discussion to the course material
 inviting others into the discussion
 asking a question
 appearing to listen attentively
 responding to the comments of others
 building on the comments of others
 playing devil’s advocate
Students might receive negative marks for demonstrating the following:
 disruptive interrupting
 monopolizing the discussion
 personal criticism
 irrelevant or distracting statements
To grade the students, the teacher could create a grid with each student’s name across the top and a
list of these skills along the side. The teacher can then note when individual students exhibit the skills
and grade them accordingly. Alternatively, the teacher might want to take notes on the discussion as
a whole and give students a group grade depending on how well they worked together, exhibiting the
skills above to address the question. In this case, the teacher would have to create a narrative rubric
that explains to students how they would be marked. The rubric can also be adapted to work with
individual students.
(Continued on next page)
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
TEACHING
Procedure
1. If students have not been exposed to a scored discussion in the past, a practice scored discussion
should be conducted to tease out the critical attributes of a good discussion.
2. The teacher should determine an appropriate question for the students to discuss. The question
should be open-ended or controversial to ensure a variety of viewpoints.
3. One or more readings, or other sources of information, should be selected for students to
complete before attending the discussion. The readings should provide students with enough
information that they can pull evidence for multiple perspectives from them. Students should
be given adequate time to complete the readings or other preparatory work before the discussion
occurs.
4. Conduct the discussion. Set a time limit for the discussion; however, if students are still engaged
effectively as the time limit approaches, the teacher may want to grant more flexibility. If the class
is large, the teacher could use a fishbowl format, whereby half of the students sit in a circle in the
center of the class to discuss the controversial issue, while the other half of the students sit on the
outside, taking notes on the discussion to help with the debriefing afterwards.
5. After the discussion is complete, the teacher should conduct a debriefing. If a fishbowl format
was used, the students who did not participate in the discussion should be invited to share their
observations about the discussion. Positive aspects of the discussion should be emphasized so that
students can build on the experience to improve their performance next time around. A followup written assignment may help students process what they have heard and read.
(Continued on next page)
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
TEACHING
Sample Scored Discussion Narrative Rubric
For use with the scored discussion teaching strategy
Exemplary
Effective
Adequate
The students have
accurately expressed
considerable knowledge
pertinent to the discussion
question/issue. In addition,
students have used a variety
of skills, both behavioral and
knowledge-based, to
advance the discussion. The
students were always civil,
listened intently, showed no
sign of negative behaviors
and participated frequently
given the time allowed
The students have accurately
expressed knowledge pertinent
to the discussion
question/issue. The students
used a variety of skills, both
behavioral and knowledgebased to advance the
discussion. The number and
variety of skills employed
shows room for improvement
given the time allowed. The
students were always civil, and
listened intently, though may
have showed some signs of
less serious negative behaviors
such as interrupting. The
frequency of participation may
need improvement.
The students have
accurately expressed some
knowledge pertinent to the
discussion question/issue.
The students used some
skills to advance the
discussion, but the skills may
have been predominantly
knowledge-based OR
behavioral. The number and
variety of skills employed
shows considerable room for
improvement given the time
allowed. The students were
always civil, though may
have showed some signs of
less serious negative
behaviors such as
interrupting. The students
may have also shown signs
of not listening. The
frequency of participation
shows considerable room for
improvement.
Minimal
Unsatisfactory
The students have
accurately expressed some
knowledge pertinent to the
discussion question/issue.
However, there may have
been a large number of
inaccurate statements made
that show a lack of
preparation for the
discussion. The students
showed minimal signs of
skills to advance the
discussion. There is
considerable room to
improve the frequency and
quality of participation. The
students may have shown
signs of uncivil behavior that
disrupted the discussion,
such as very disruptive
interrupting, or criticizing
people instead of ideas. The
students may have shown
signs of not listening intently.
The students have failed to
express any relevant
knowledge on the discussion
question/issue. The students
have also demonstrated few if
any skills to further the
discussion.
©
© 2010
2010 Street
Street Law,
Law, Inc.
Inc. and
and the
the Supreme
Supreme Court
Court Historical
Historical Society
Society
www.landmarkcases.org
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda
Arizona
Teachingv.Strategies
TEACHING
www.LandmarkCases.org
Decision
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Key Excerpts from the Majority Opinion
The case was decided 5 to 4. Chief Justice Warren delivered the opinion of the Court.
The cases before us raise questions which go to the roots of our concepts of American criminal
jurisprudence: the restraints society must observe consistent with the Federal Constitution in
prosecuting individuals for crime. More specifically, we deal with the admissibility of statements
obtained from an individual who is subjected to custodial police interrogation and the necessity for
procedures which assure that the individual is accorded his privilege under the Fifth Amendment to
the Constitution not to be compelled to incriminate himself. . . .
Our holding will be spelled out with some specificity in the pages which follow but briefly stated
it is this: 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. . . .
As for the procedural safeguards to be employed . . . the following measures are required. Prior to
any questioning, the person must be warned 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. The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights,
provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. If, however, he indicates in any
manner and at any stage of the process that he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking
there can be no questioning. Likewise, if the individual is alone and indicates in any manner that he
does not wish to be interrogated, the police may not question him. The mere fact that he may have
answered some questions or volunteered some statements on his own does not deprive him of the
right to refrain from answering any further inquiries until he has consulted with an attorney and
thereafter consents to be questioned. . . .
The Fifth Amendment privilege is so fundamental to our system of constitutional rule and the
expedient of giving an adequate warning as to the availability of the privilege so simple, we will not
pause to inquire in individual cases whether the defendant was aware of his rights without a warning
being given. . . .The warning of the right to remain silent must be accompanied by the explanation
that anything said can and will be used against the individual in court. This warning is needed in
order to make him aware not only of the privilege, but also of the consequences of forgoing it. . . .
[T]his warning may serve to make the individual more acutely aware that he is faced with a phase of
the adversary system-that he is not in the presence of persons acting solely in his interests. . . .
. . . [W]e hold that an individual held for interrogation must be clearly informed that he has the
right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation under the system
for protecting the privilege we delineate today. . . . No amount of circumstantial evidence that the
person may have been aware of this right will suffice to stand in its stead: Only through such a
warning is there ascertainable assurance that the accused was aware of this right.
If an individual indicates that he wishes the assistance of counsel before any interrogation occurs,
the authorities cannot rationally ignore or deny his request on the basis that the individual does not
have or cannot afford a retained attorney. . . . The privilege against self-incrimination secured by the
Constitution applies to all individuals. The need for counsel in order to protect the privilege exists
for the indigent as well as the affluent. . . .
(Continued on next page)
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
DECISION
The principles announced today deal with the protection which must be given to the privilege
against self-incrimination when the individual is first subjected to police interrogation while in
custody at the station or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. It is at
this point that our adversary system of criminal proceedings commences, distinguishing itself at the
outset from the inquisitorial system recognized in some countries. Under the system of warnings we
delineate today or under any other system which may be devised and found effective, the safeguards
to be erected about the privilege must come into play at this point. . . . . . . [W]e hold that when
an individual is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom by the authorities in any
significant way and is subjected to questioning, the privilege against self-incrimination is jeopardized.
...
Questions to Consider
1. According to Chief Justice Warren, what fundamental questions does this case raise about the
American justice system? 2. What does he mean by “custodial interrogation”? 3. Why does he say that we should not rely on asking individuals whether they are aware of their
rights without a warning being given? 4. What does Chief Justice Warren say the police have to do to ensure due process? 5. Do you agree that when a person is taken into custody and subjected to questioning, the
privilege against self-incrimination is jeopardized unless explicit warnings are given about rights?
Why or why not? Should there be any exceptions to this rule? Explain.
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
DECISION
Key Excerpts from the Dissenting Opinion
The case was decided 5 to 4. Mr. Justice Harlan, with Justices Stewart and White joining, wrote
the main dissenting opinion.
I believe the decision of the Court represents poor constitutional law and entails harmful
consequences for the country at large. How serious these consequences may prove to be only time
can tell. But the basic flaws in the Court’s justification seem to me readily apparent now once all sides
of the problem are considered. . . .The new rules are not designed to guard against police brutality or
other unmistakably banned forms of coercion. Those who use third-degree tactics and deny them in
court are equally able and destined to lie as skillfully about warnings and waivers. Rather, the thrust
of the new rules is to negate all pressures, to reinforce the nervous or ignorant suspect, and ultimately
to discourage any confession at all. The aim in short is toward “voluntariness” in a utopian sense, or
to view it from a different angle, voluntariness with a vengeance. . . .
Without at all subscribing to the generally black picture of police conduct painted by the Court,
I think it must be frankly recognized at the outset that police questioning allowable under due
process precedents may inherently entail some pressure on the suspect and may seek advantage in his
ignorance or weaknesses. . . .
The Court’s new rules aim to offset . . . minor pressures and disadvantages intrinsic to any kind of
police interrogation. The rules do not serve due process interests in preventing blatant coercion since
. . . they do nothing to contain the policeman who is prepared to lie from the start. The rules work
for reliability in confessions almost only in the . . . sense that they can prevent some from being given
at all. In short, the benefit of this new regime is simply to lessen or wipe out the inherent compulsion
and inequalities to which the Court devotes some nine pages of description.
What the Court largely ignores is that its rules impair, if they will not eventually serve wholly to
frustrate, an instrument of law enforcement that has long and quite reasonably been thought worth
the price paid for it. There can be little doubt that the Court’s new code would markedly decrease
the number of confessions. To warn the suspect that he may remain silent and remind him that his
confession may be used in court are minor obstructions. To require also an express waiver by the
suspect and an end to questioning whenever he demurs must heavily handicap questioning. And to
suggest or provide counsel for the suspect simply invites the end of the interrogation.
How much harm this decision will inflict on law enforcement cannot fairly be predicted with
accuracy. . . . We do know that some crimes cannot be solved without confessions, that ample expert
testimony attests to their importance in crime control, and that the Court is taking a real risk with
society’s welfare in imposing its new regime on the country. The social costs of crime are too great to
call the new rules anything but a hazardous experimentation. . . .
Though at first denying his guilt, within a short time Miranda gave a detailed oral confession and
then wrote out in his own hand and signed a brief statement admitting and describing the crime. All
this was accomplished in two hours or less without any force, threats or promises and . . . without
any effective warnings at all.
Miranda’s oral and written confessions are now held inadmissible under the Court’s new rules. One is
entitled to feel astonished that the Constitution can be read to produce this result. These confessions
were obtained during brief, daytime questioning conducted by two officers and unmarked by any
of the traditional indicia of coercion. They assured a conviction for a brutal and unsettling crime,
(Continued on next page)
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
DECISION
for which the police had and quite possibly could obtain little evidence other than the victim’s
identifications, evidence which is frequently unreliable. There was, in sum, a legitimate purpose,
no perceptible unfairness, and certainly little risk of injustice in the interrogation. Yet the resulting
confessions, and the responsible course of police practice they represent, are to be sacrificed to the
Court’s own finespun conception of fairness which I seriously doubt is shared by many thinking
citizens in this country. . . .
Nothing in the letter or the spirit of the Constitution or in the precedents squares with the heavyhanded and one-sided action that is so precipitously taken by the Court in the name of fulfilling its
constitutional responsibilities. The foray which the Court makes today brings to mind the wise and
farsighted words of Mr. Justice Jackson in Douglas v. Jeannette: “This Court is forever adding new
stories to the temples of constitutional law, and the temples have a way of collapsing when one story
too many is added.”
Questions to Consider
1. Why does Justice Harlan say the Miranda warnings are not designed to guard against “police
brutality or other unmistakably banned forms of coercion”? 2. According to Justice Harlan, how will the Court’s new rules impair “an instrument of law
enforcement that has long and quite reasonably been thought worth the price paid for it”? 3. Why does Harlan say the Court’s new rules are “hazardous experimentation”? 4. This case involves the balancing of individual rights against the desire of society to fight crime.
How do Justice Harlan and Chief Justice Warren disagree in how they believe these rights and
values should be balanced? 5. Has reading the excerpts from the majority and dissenting opinions changed your opinion about
this case? How?
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
DECISION
Summary of the Decision
In a 5-4 opinion, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Miranda. The majority opinion, written by
Chief Justice Earl Warren, concluded that defendants arrested under state law must be informed
of their constitutional rights against self-incrimination and to representation by an attorney before
being interrogated when in police custody. Justices Clark, Harlan, Stewart and White dissented.
In their majority opinion, the justices explained that the Fifth Amendment right against selfincrimination is fundamental to our system of justice, and is “one of our Nation’s most cherished
principles.” This guarantee requires that only statements freely made by a defendant may be used
in court. The justices described some of the techniques used by police officers in interrogations. They observed that “the modern practice of in-custody interrogation is psychologically rather
than physically oriented,” and cited the advantage police officers hold in custodial interrogations
(interrogations that take place while the subject is in police custody). Because of these advantages,
they concluded that “the very fact of custodial interrogation exacts a heavy toll on individual liberty,
and trades on the weakness of individuals.”
The Court ruled that in order to reconcile the necessary practice of custodial interrogations with the
guarantees of the Fifth Amendment, police must ensure that defendants are aware of their rights
before they are interrogated in custody. Because the right against self-incrimination is so important
to our system of justice, a case by case determination made by police officers of whether each
defendant understands his or her rights is not sufficient. Before interrogating defendants in police
custody, they must be warned 1) that they have the right to remain silent 2) that anything they say
may be used against them in court, 3) that they have the right to an attorney, either retained by
them or appointed by the court, and 4) that they may waive these rights, but they retain the right
to ask for an attorney any time during the interrogation, at which point the interrogation can only
continue in the presence of a lawyer. The Supreme Court reasoned that because the right against self-incrimination is so fundamental,
and because it is so simple to inform defendants of their rights, any statements made by defendants
during a custodial interrogation in which the defendant has not been read his “Miranda rights” are
inadmissible in both state and federal courts.
Justice Harlan wrote the main dissent. He argued that the newly created rules did not protect
against police brutality, coercion or other abuses of authority during custodial interrogations because
officers willing to use such illegal tactics and deny their use in court were “equally able and destined
to lie as skillfully about warnings and waivers.” Instead, he predicted that the new requirements
would impair and substantially frustrate police officers in the use of techniques that had long been
considered appropriate and even necessary, thus reducing the number of confessions police would be
able to obtain. He concluded that the harmful effects of crime on society were “too great to call the
new rules anything but a hazardous experimentation.”
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
DECISION
www.LandmarkCases.org
Resources
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Recommended Resources
 Listen to the oral arguments (Oyez.org)
 Full Text of the Majority Opinion (Cornell University Law School)
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
resources
www.LandmarkCases.org
For Teachers Only
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Suggestions to differentiate this activity
Precedent and Stare Decises
To differentiate this lesson for students who may struggle with the reading level, you might consider
doing the first question of Part Three together as a class—demonstrating how you would mark up
the quotes, how you might rephrase the quote, how you might think about your answer, and where
to record your answer.
You might also consider asking students in advanced classes to research the transcripts of Judiciary
Committee hearings or even news accounts of Senate confirmation hearings for recent Supreme
Court Justice nominations. Students should look for questions from senators or answers from
nominees about the nominees’ views on either abortion or stare decisis. What did the nominees
say? Why do you think the senators asked those questions? Did you notice that in recent hearing,
senators asked questions using used code words like “Will you adhere to the general philosophy of
stare decisis?” when they really wanted to know “Will you overturn the precedent in Roe v. Wade?”
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
for teachers only
Answers: Background Summary & Questions (•••)
Questions to Consider
1. The Fifth Amendment states that, “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise
infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising
in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public
danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life
or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be
deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation.” The underlined sections are important for the
Miranda decision. The issue is whether Miranda was compelled to be a witness against himself
and whether he was deprived of due process because he was not informed of his right not to selfincriminate.
2. The Sixth Amendment states that, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right
to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall
have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against
him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance
of Counsel for his defence.” The Sixth Amendment is relevant here because Miranda did not
consult with an attorney and was not informed that he could have done so.
3. If he were informed of these rights up front, he may not have signed a confession to the crime.
He may have wanted to consult with an attorney who would have informed him of his rights not
to self-incriminate.
4. It is important for police to be able to question suspects and witnesses. Police often obtain
valuable information in criminal cases through interrogation. If the police must inform people of
their rights, they may get less information from interrogations and they may not be able to solve
cases as quickly or easily. The demands of police work and the maintenance of an orderly society
are balanced against the right to counsel and the right against self-incrimination.
5. Answers will vary.
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
for teachers only
Answers: Background Summary & Questions (••)
Questions to Consider
1. The Fifth Amendment states that, “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise
infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising
in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public
danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life
or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be
deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation.” The underlined sections are important for the
Miranda decision. The issue is whether Miranda was compelled to be a witness against himself
and whether he was deprived of due process because he was not informed of his right not to selfincriminate.
2. The Sixth Amendment states that, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right
to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall
have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against
him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance
of Counsel for his defence.” The Sixth Amendment is relevant here because Miranda did not
consult with an attorney, but was not informed that he could have done so.
3. If he were informed of these rights up front, he may not have signed a confession to the crime.
He may have wanted to consult with an attorney who would have informed him of his rights not
to self-incriminate.
4. It is important for police to be able to question suspects and witnesses. Police often obtain
valuable information in criminal cases through interrogation. If the police must inform people
of their rights, they may get less information from interrogations and they may not be able to
solve cases as quickly or easily. So the demands of police work and the maintenance of an orderly
society are balanced against the right to counsel and the right against self-incrimination.
5. Answers will vary.
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
for teachers only
Answers: Background Summary & Questions (•)
Questions to Consider
1. The Fifth Amendment states that, “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise
infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising
in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public
danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life
or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be
deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation.” The underlined sections are important for the
Miranda decision. The issue is whether Miranda was compelled to be a witness against himself
and whether he was deprived of due process because he was not informed of his right not to selfincriminate.
2. The Sixth Amendment states that, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right
to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall
have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against
him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance
of Counsel for his defence.” The Sixth Amendment is relevant here because Miranda did not
consult with an attorney, but was not informed that he could have done so.
3. If he were informed of these rights up front, he may not have signed a confession to the crime.
He may have wanted to consult with an attorney who would have informed him of his rights not
to self-incriminate.
4. Informing people of their rights means that they may not want to talk to the police, as is their
right, and that they may consult with an attorney who will inform them of the best course of
action to avoid criminal prosecution. Not speaking and consulting with an expert in the law
could harm the ability of the police to fight a crime because the accused person may not reveal
information critical to the case.
5. Answers will vary.
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
for teachers only
Answers: Important Vocabulary (•••/••)
 immigrant (to immigrate)
Definition: A person who leaves one country to settle permanently in another country
 accused (to accuse)
Definition: To formally blame someone with a wrongdoing or crime
 confession
Definition: A statement in which a person admits to being guilty of a wrongdoing or crime
 appealed (to appeal)
Definition: To formally request that a lower court decision be examined and reconsidered by a
higher court
 interrogation (to interrogate)
Definition: To ask questions formally or officially
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
for teachers only
Answers: Important Vocabulary (•)
Student answers will vary.
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
for teachers only
Answers: Key Excerpts from the Majority Opinion
Questions to Consider
1. Chief Justice Warren says that the case raises questions about how much restraint society (and
in particular the police) must observe when pursuing a criminal case in order to conform to the
demands of the U.S. Constitution. In other words, what are the boundaries of what the police
can do when investigating a crime?
2. Custodial interrogation refers to the period of questioning of a suspect while he or she is in the
custody of (or in the hands of ) the police. Chief Justice Warren says that the rule of Miranda
applies to “questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into
custody.”
3. Chief Justice Warren says the Fifth Amendment is so important to the justice system and the
act of informing suspects of their rights is so simple, that it doesn’t make sense on a case-by-case
basis to wonder whether the defendant was aware of his rights.
4. The police have to demonstrate “the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege
against self-incrimination.”
5. “Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned 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.”
6. “The warning of the right to remain silent must be accompanied by the explanation that
anything said can and will be used against the individual in court.”
7. Answers will vary.
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
for teachers only
Answers: Key Excerpts from the Dissenting Opinion
Questions to Consider
1. He says that the police can easily lie about these more blatant or brutal forms of coercion just as
they can lie about whether warnings about rights were given to suspects.
2. Justice Harlan is concerned that the new rules will effectively end interrogations and confessions.
He says that many crimes are solved through confessions and that the pressure put on suspects
through interrogation is a price that has been worth paying to ensure the expedient solution to
unsettling crimes. He sees a threat to society’s welfare in the decision.
3. He calls the new rules experimentation because no one is sure of the effect that the Court’s
decision will have on the ability of law enforcement agencies to do their jobs. It is unclear,
according to Justice Harlan, what the benefits are of such a decision, but the risks are readily
apparent.
4. Chief Justice Warren believes that the rights should be balanced in favor of the defendant to
ensure that justice is done and that those who are wrongly accused do not get punished. Justice
Harlan believes that the rights should be balanced in favor of society, for the maintenance of
order and the effectiveness of police.
5. Answers will vary.
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
for teachers only
Answers: Miranda Warnings and the Bill of Rights
 "You have the right to remain silent."
 "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law."
Both of these warnings are meant to preserve the right against self-incrimination as guaranteed in the
Fifth Amendment. Chief Justice Warren explains in his decision that the second warning is meant to
help the defendant fully understand the implications of forgoing the first right.
This right is important for ensuring that people are not forced to confess through coercion. If people
have the right to be silent, then the police may be less likely to use threatening tactics to force people
to confess. However, informing people of this right is no guarantee that it won’t be violated. Just
because a person knows that he doesn’t have to speak, doesn’t mean that the police won’t use tactics
to make him speak. Police probably cannot be absolutely certain that a person understands this right
unless they specifically chose to exercise it.
 "You have the right to have an attorney present before any questioning."
 "If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to represent you before any
questioning."
 "Do you understand these rights?"
These warnings are meant to preserve the right of assistance to counsel as guaranteed in the Sixth
Amendment.
This right is important for ensuring that the defendant knows and understands the laws he is accused
of violating as well as his rights during the process of bringing the case to court. Informing a suspect
of his right in this regard does not ensure that it won’t be violated, for instance if incompetent
counsel is provided for a defendant. The police can be reasonably sure that a suspect understands this
right when he or she asks for an attorney.
(Continued on next page)
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
for teachers only
Fifth Amendment—right to be free from
self-incrimination
Bill of Rights
Answers will vary.
Fifth Amendment—right to be free from
self-incrimination
Put in your own words
You have the right to remain silent.
Answers will vary.
Sixth Amendment—right to an attorney
Sentence from Miranda
Anything you say can and will be used
against you in a court of law.
Answers will vary.
Sixth Amendment—right to an attorney
You have the right to an attorney.
Answers will vary.
If you cannot afford an attorney, one
will be appointed for you.
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
for teachers only
Answers: Miranda and the Exclusionary Rule
Questions to Consider
1. The purpose of the exclusionary rule is to prevent the executive branch from using unreasonable
tactics to gather evidence while pursuing a case.
2. One consequence is that the police have to adhere to certain procedures before taking certain
actions. For instance, before searching premises, the police should get a search warrant. This
could take time that allows for a criminal to dispose of evidence. The police must inform suspects
of their Miranda rights, which may make it more difficult for the police to get a confession or
information that leads to solving the crime.
3. Answers will vary.
4. Answers will vary.
5. Answers will vary. Students should note, however, that the exclusionary rule is meant to influence
police behavior in all cases, not just those that come to trial.
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
for teachers only
Answers: Controversy Over the Court’s Decision
1. con
2. pro
3. con (mild)
4. pro or con—depends on the reading of the passage
5. con
6. con
7. con (mild)
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
for teachers only
Teaching Tip: Should the Miranda Warnings Be Required
Police Procedure?
Before beginning this activity, you may want to have your students read the Background Summary
(•••, ••, •) and complete the Controversy Over the Court’s Decision activity. This will help
familiarize them with the arguments for and against Miranda.
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
for teachers only
Answers—A Real World Case Study: Homicide by David
Simon
Questions to Consider: Part I
1. It is important for the suspect to know that he is in an adversarial system so that he doesn’t
believe that people are acting in his interest. If he believes that people are acting in his interest, he
might be more likely to offer up information that incriminates himself, or to forgo the assistance
of a lawyer, neither of which are in his interest.
2. Not according to Chief Justice Warren. He says that evidence of such behavior in the context of a
confession means that the accused did not voluntarily waive his rights.
3. The goal is that the suspect be fully aware of his rights and the consequences of giving up those
rights. That the suspect make completely informed and free decisions.
4. Answers will vary.
Questions to Consider: Part II
1. No. Trying to make the suspect believe that the police are on his or her side violates the premise
that the defendant must be made aware that he is in an adversarial system.
2. Answers will vary.
3. David Simon portrays this strategy of making the police out to be on the side of the suspect as
commonplace. If this strategy were not allowed, as it would seem by a strict reading of Chief
Justice Warren’s decision, then it may be more difficult for the police to get suspects to talk.
4. The suspect would fully understand that whether it is or is not in his or her interest to talk about
the case with the police at the time of interrogation, it is not something for the police to decide.
Before speaking, the suspect could have full advice of a lawyer who would be able to inform the
suspect impartially of his or her rights as well as the best strategy for the defense.
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
for teachers only
Answers: Should Miranda Be Overturned in Dickerson v. the
United States?
In step 2 of the activity, students are instructed to answer these questions with their group
members:
 What are the competing interests that the Court needs to weigh in this case?
Answers will vary, but should include the idea that that the competing interests are protection
guaranteed to the accused and the protection from crime provided to society, or the criminal
suspects’ rights and law enforcement officials’ interest in completing their jobs effectively.
Suspects have the right to avoid self-incrimination and to the counsel of a lawyer, but
stopping to inform suspects of those rights can slow down a police investigation or could
encourage someone to remain silent when they were about to provide valuable information to
the police. The exclusionary rule - requiring any statements or confessions obtained without
proper Miranda warnings to be excluded in Court—brings up the same competing interests:
law enforcement’s interest in prosecuting cases and suspects’ interests in making sure the
government doesn’t violate their rights.
 What are the arguments for upholding Miranda v. Arizona and requiring that police read
suspects the Miranda warnings?
Answers may vary. Here is a list of potential answers, but keep in mind this list is not
exhaustive:
 Few suspected criminals have gone free simply because they were read their rights
 Providing warnings ensures that the law is fair to both victims and suspects
 The warnings reduce the “environment of coercion” that exists in a custodial
interrogation.
 The warnings make suspects aware of their Constitutional rights
 Requiring the warnings discourages unsavory police tactics
 Miranda is a precedent that has been part of police practice for many years. It should be
upheld to maintain consistency in law enforcement.
 What are the arguments for overturning Miranda v. Arizona? What are some potential
consequences if Miranda was overturned and states could decide for themselves how to
inform suspects of their rights?
Answers may vary. Here is a list of potential answers, but keep in mind this list is not
exhaustive:
 Encouraging criminals to remain silent is counterproductive to fighting crime
 Requiring police officers to read warnings limits their flexibility in doing their jobs
 Suspects should already know their constitutional rights, and it is not clear that the
Constitution requires warnings suspects about their rights.
(Continued on next page)
© 2010 Street Law, Inc. and the Supreme Court Historical Society
www.landmarkcases.org
Miranda v. Arizona
for teachers only