Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Miranda v. Ariz.

Supreme Court of the United States

February 28, 1966-March 1, 1966, Argued ; June 13, 1966, Decided 1

No. 759


 [*439]   [***704]   [**1609]  MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.

The cases before us raise questions which go to the roots of our concepts of American criminal jurisprudence: the restraints society must observe consistent with the Federal Constitution in prosecuting individuals for crime. More specifically, we deal with the admissibility of statements obtained from an individual who is subjected to custodial police interrogation and the necessity for procedures which assure that the individual is accorded his privilege under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution not to be compelled to incriminate himself.

 [*440]  We dealt with certain phases of this problem recently in Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478  [**1610]  (1964). [****8]  There, as in the four cases before us, law enforcement officials took the defendant into custody and interrogated him in a police station for the purpose of obtaining a confession. The police did not effectively advise him of his right to remain silent or of his right to consult with his attorney. Rather, they confronted him with an alleged accomplice who accused him of having perpetrated a murder. When the defendant denied the accusation and said "I didn't shoot Manuel, you did it," they handcuffed him and took him to an interrogation room. There, while handcuffed and standing, he was questioned for four hours until he confessed. During this interrogation, the police denied his request to speak to his attorney, and they prevented his retained attorney, who had come to the police station, from consulting with him. At his trial, the State, over his objection, introduced the confession against him. We held that the statements thus made were constitutionally inadmissible.

This case has been the subject of judicial interpretation and spirited legal debate since it was decided two years ago. Both state and federal courts, in assessing its implications, have arrived at varying conclusions.  [****9]  2 A wealth of scholarly material has been written tracing its ramifications and underpinnings. 3 [****10]  Police and prosecutor  [*441]  have speculated on its range and desirability. 4 We granted  [**1611]  certiorari in these cases, 382 U.S. 924, 925, 937,  [***705]  in order further to explore some facets of the problems, thus exposed, of applying the privilege against self-incrimination to in-custody interrogation, and to give  [*442]  concrete constitutional guidelines for law enforcement agencies and courts to follow.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

384 U.S. 436 *; 86 S. Ct. 1602 **; 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 ***; 1966 U.S. LEXIS 2817 ****; 10 Ohio Misc. 9; 36 Ohio Op. 2d 237; 10 A.L.R.3d 974



Disposition:  98 Ariz. 18, 401 P. 2d 721; 15 N. Y. 2d 970, 207 N. E. 2d 527; 16 N. Y. 2d 614, 209 N. E. 2d 110; 342 F.2d 684, reversed; 62 Cal. 2d 571, 400 P. 2d 97, affirmed.


interrogation, confession, warning, questioning, cases, Fifth Amendment, rights, arrest, custody, self-incrimination, circumstances, authorities, custodial interrogation, police interrogation, law enforcement, courts, right to remain silent, right to counsel, compulsion, interview, police officer, safeguards, effective, robbery, constitutional right, atmosphere, in-custody, guilt, police station, incriminate

Constitutional Law, Fundamental Rights, Procedural Due Process, Self-Incrimination Privilege, Criminal Law & Procedure, Interrogation, Miranda Rights, Evidence, Privileges, Self-Incrimination Privilege, General Overview, Defendant's Rights, Right to Remain Silent, Commencement of Criminal Proceedings, Voluntariness, Custodial Interrogation, Scope of Protection, Scope, Postconviction Proceedings, Motions to Vacate Judgment, Counsel, Right to Counsel, Right to Counsel During Questioning, Elements, International Law, Foreign & International Immunity, Voluntary Waiver, Criminal Process, Assistance of Counsel, Public Health & Welfare Law, Social Services, Legal Aid