CLM5A2

3/10/2017 Miranda v. Arizona | Oyez

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1965/759 1/4

P E T I T I O N E R

Miranda

R E S P O N D E N T

Arizona

L O C A T I O N

Phoenix, Arizona

D O C K E T N O .

759

D E C I D E D B Y

Warren Court (1965-1967)

C I T A T I O N

384 US 436 (1966)

(https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/384/436)

A R G U E D

Feb 28, 1966; Mar 1, 1966; Mar 2, 1966

D E C I D E D

Jun 13, 1966

A D V O C A T E S

John J. Flynn (advocates/john_j_韤�ynn)

for the petitioner, 759

Victor M. Earle, III (advocates/victor_m_earle_iii)

for the petitioner, 760

F. Conger Fawcett (advocates/f_conger_fawcett)

for the petitioner, 761

Gordon Ringer (advocates/gordon_ringer)

for the petitioner, 584

Gary K. Nelson (advocates/gary_k_nelson)

for the respondent, 759

William I. Siegel (advocates/william_i_siegel)

for the respondent, 760

Thurgood Marshall (advocates/thurgood_marshall)

Solicitor General, for the United States, 761

(/)

Miranda v. Arizona

3/10/2017 Miranda v. Arizona | Oyez

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1965/759 2/4

William A. Norris (advocates/william_a_norris)

for the respondent, 584

Telford Taylor (advocates/telford_taylor)

for the State of New York as amicus curiae in all cases by

special leave of the Court

Duane R. Nedrud (advocates/duane_r_nedrud)

for the National District Attorneys' Association, as amicus

curiae

Facts of the case This case represents the consolidation of four cases, in each of which the defendant confessed guilt after being subjected to a variety of interrogation techniques without being informed of his Fifth Amendment rights during an interrogation. On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in his house and brought to the police station where he was questioned by police o韭�cers in connection with a kidnapping and rape. After two hours of interrogation, the police obtained a written confession from Miranda. The written confession was admitted into evidence at trial despite the objection of the defense attorney and the fact that the police o韭�cers admitted that they had not advised Miranda of his right to have an attorney present during the interrogation. The jury found Miranda guilty. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona a韭�rmed and held that Miranda’s constitutional rights were not violated because he did not speci韢�cally request counsel.

Question Do the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self- incrimination extend to the police interrogation of a suspect?

3/10/2017 Miranda v. Arizona | Oyez

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1965/759 3/4

Sort:  by seniority by ideology

Conclusion

Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered the opinion of the 5-4 majority. The Supreme Court held that the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination is available in all settings. Therefore, prosecution may not use statements arising from a custodial interrogation of a suspect unless certain procedural safeguards were in place. Such safeguards include proof that the suspect was aware of his right to be silent, that any statement he makes may be used against him, that he has the right to have an attorney present, that he has the right to have an attorney appointed to him, that he may waive these rights if he does so voluntarily, and that if at any points he requests an attorney there will be no further questioning until the attorney arrives. The Court held that, in each of the cases, the interrogation techniques used did not technically fall into the category of coercive, but they failed to ensure that the defendant’s decision to speak with the police was entirely the product of his own free will. Justice Tom C. Clark wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority’s opinion created an unnecessarily strict interpretation of the Fifth Amendment that curtails the ability of the police to e韕�ectively execute their duties. He wrote that the state should have the burden to prove that the suspect was

5 – 4 D E C I S I O N F O R M I R A N D A

M A J O R I T Y O P I N I O N B Y E A R L W A R R E N

The Fifth Amendment requires that law enforcement o韭�cials advise

suspects of their right to remain silent and to obtain an attorney during

interrogations while in police custody.

Earl Warren

Hugo L. Black

William O. Douglas

William J. Brennan, Jr.

Abe Fortas

Tom C. Clark

John M. Harlan II Potter Stewart

Byron R. White

3/10/2017 Miranda v. Arizona | Oyez

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1965/759 4/4

APA Bluebook Chicago MLA

Cite this page

"Miranda v. Arizona." Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1965/759. Accessed 10 Mar. 2017.

aware of his rights during the interrogation, but that statements resulting from interrogation should not be automatically excluded if the suspect was not explicitly informed of his rights. In his separate dissenting opinion, Justice John M. Harlan wrote that the judicial precedent and legislative history surrounding the Fifth Amendment does not support the view that the Fifth Amendment prohibits all pressure on the suspect. He also argued that there was no legal precedent to support the requirement to speci韢�cally inform suspects of their rights. Justices Potter Stewart and Byron R. White joined in the dissent. Justice White wrote a separate dissent in which he argued that the Fifth Amendment only protects defendants from giving self-incriminating testimony if explicitly compelled to do so. He argued that custodial interrogation was not inherently coercive and did not require such a broad interpretation of the protections of the Fifth Amendment. Such an interpretation harms the criminal process by destroying the credibility of confessions. Justices Harlan and Stewart joined in the dissenting opinion.