Landmark Supreme Court Case · Rights of the accused
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
- Decided
- 1966
- Vote
- 5–4
- Opinion
- Chief Justice Earl Warren
- Constitutional provisions
Facts of the case
In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix, Arizona, and questioned by police for about two hours. He confessed in writing to kidnapping and rape. He was never told that he had the right to remain silent or to have a lawyer. His confession was used to convict him. The Supreme Court combined his appeal with three similar cases.
The constitutional question
Must police inform suspects of their constitutional rights before custodial interrogation for their statements to be used at trial?
The decision
Yes. The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination requires that, before questioning a person in custody, police must warn the suspect of the right to remain silent, that statements can be used against them, and of the right to an attorney (appointed if they cannot afford one). Statements obtained without these warnings cannot be used to prove guilt.
The Court's reasoning
Custodial interrogation is inherently pressured. Clear warnings are needed so that any waiver of rights is knowing and voluntary.
Why it matters
It created the familiar "Miranda warnings." Miranda was retried without the confession and convicted again on other evidence. The Court reaffirmed the rule in Dickerson v. United States (2000).
In the Court's words
He must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.
Chief Justice Earl Warren, majority opinion