Miranda v. Arizona

Miranda v. Arizona
Ernesto Miranda
I did not know i had a right to a layer first
I did not know that i didn't have to answer their questions while being interrogated
They should have told me these rights
Argued he had not been informed of his constitutional right to remain silent or have a lawyer
Summary of the background of the case
Miranda was arrested at his home and taken in custody to a police station where he was
identified as suspect. He was then interrogated by police officers for a few hours, which
resulted in a confession. At trial, both confessions were presented to the jury. Miranda was
found guilty of kidnapping and rape and was sentenced to 20-30 years of prison on each
count. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona held that Miranda’s constitutional rights
were not violated in obtaining the confession.
Ernesto Miranda
Phoenix police department
Arizona Supreme Court
Constitutional Issue
Whether “statements obtained from an individual who is subjected to custodial police
interrogation” are admissible against him in a criminal trial and whether “procedures which
assure that the individual is accorded his privilege under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution
not to be compelled to incriminate himself” are necessary.
President at the time of case
Lyndon B. Johnson
Summary of Supreme Court decision
In a 5-4 majority, the court held that statements made in response to an
interrogation by a defendant in a police custody will be admissible at a trial only if
the prosecution can show that the defendant was informed of the right to consult
with an attorney and of the right of self-incrimination before police questioning,
and that the defendant understood these rights, but voluntarily waive them.