Decided: June 13, 1966
Vote: 5–4
Brief Fact Summary:
The defendants offered incriminating evidence during police interrogations without
prior notification of their rights under the Fifth Amendment of the United States
Synopsis of Rule of Law:
Government authorities need to inform individuals of their Fifth Amendment
constitutional rights prior to an interrogation following an arrest.
The case began with the 1963 arrest of Phoenix resident Ernesto Miranda, who was
charged with rape, kidnapping, and robbery. Miranda was not informed of his rights
prior to the police interrogation. During the two-hour interrogation, Miranda allegedly
confessed to committing the crimes, which the police apparently recorded. Miranda,
who had not finished ninth grade and had a history of mental instability, had no counsel
present. At trial, the prosecution's case consisted solely of his confession. Miranda was
convicted of both rape and kidnapping and sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison.
Whether the government is required to notify the arrested defendants of their Fifth
Amendment constitutional rights against self-incrimination before they interrogate the
The government needs to notify arrested individuals of their Fifth Amendment
constitutional rights, specifically: their right to remain silent; an explanation that
anything they say could be used against them in court; their right to counsel; and their
right to have counsel appointed to represent them if necessary. Without this
notification, anything admitted by an arrestee in an interrogation will not be admissible
in court.
The majority notes that once an individual chooses to remain silent or asks to first see
an attorney, any interrogation should cease. Further, the individual has the right to stop
the interrogation at any time, and the government will not be allowed to argue for an
exception to the notification rule.
"Miranda v. Arizona." Casebriefs Miranda v Arizona. Web. 11 Nov. 2015.
"Landmark Cases: Miranda v. Arizona (1966)." PBS. Web. 15 Nov. 2015.