Miranda v. Arizona Case Brief
Miranda v. Arizona Case Brief
I. Case Citation and Court
-
Case Name: Miranda v. Arizona
-
Citation: 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
-
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
II. Facts
The petitioner, Ernesto Miranda, was arrested at his home and taken to a police station where he was identified by the victim. Miranda was then interrogated by two police officers for two hours, which resulted in a written confession. The written statement was admitted into evidence at trial, and Miranda was convicted of kidnapping and rape. Miranda's attorney did not cross-examine the officers nor object to the confession's admission. Miranda was not informed of his right to counsel before or during the interrogation.
III. Issues
-
Whether the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination extends to the police interrogation of a suspect.
-
Whether statements obtained from a suspect during a police interrogation can be admitted into evidence if the suspect was not informed of their rights.
IV. Arguments
The petitioner argued that the police interrogation violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination because he was not informed of his right to remain silent and his right to counsel. The respondent argued that Miranda's confession was voluntary and that he was not in custody when he made the statements.
V. Legal Principles and Precedents
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects individuals from being compelled to be witnesses against themselves in criminal cases. This protection includes the right to remain silent and the right to have an attorney present during police interrogation. The Supreme Court has previously held that statements obtained in violation of these rights are inadmissible in court.
In Escobedo v. Illinois (1964), the Court held that a suspect must be allowed to consult with an attorney before being interrogated while in police custody. This decision was based on the idea that the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination requires that a suspect be informed of their rights before being questioned.
VI. Decision
The Supreme Court held that the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination requires that the police inform a suspect of their rights before interrogating them while in custody. This includes the right to remain silent and the right to have an attorney present during questioning. Because Miranda was not informed of his rights before or during the interrogation, his confession was inadmissible in court. Miranda's conviction was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial.
VII. Commentary
The Miranda v. Arizona case has had a profound impact on the criminal justice system, ensuring that suspects are aware of their rights during police interrogations. The decision established the now-famous "Miranda rights," which require law enforcement officers to inform suspects of their right to remain silent and their right to an attorney. This decision has helped protect individuals' Fifth Amendment rights and has become a fundamental part of police procedures across the United States.
