Title: Miranda v. Arizona | Oyez
Headings: Miranda
v.
Arizona

Miranda v. Arizona
Media
Opinions
Petitioner
Respondent
Location
Docket no.
Decided by
Citation
Argued
Decided
Advocates
Facts of the case
Question
Conclusion
5–4 decision for Miranda
majority opinion by Earl Warren

Content: The jury found Miranda guilty. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona affirmed and held that Miranda’s constitutional rights were not violated because he did not specifically request counsel. Question
Does the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination extend to the police interrogation of a suspect? Conclusion
Sort: by seniority
by ideology
<< decision 1 of 1 >>
5–4 decision for Miranda
majority opinion by Earl Warren
The Fifth Amendment requires that law enforcement officials advise suspects of their right to remain silent and to obtain an attorney during interrogations while in police custody. The Fifth Amendment requires that law enforcement officials advise suspects of their right to remain silent and to obtain an attorney during interrogations while in police custody. Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered the opinion of the 5-4 majority, concluding that defendant’s interrogation violated the Fifth Amendment. To protect the privilege, the Court reasoned, procedural safeguards were required. A defendant was required to be warned before questioning that he had the right to remain silent, and that anything he said can be used against him in a court of law. A defendant was required to be told that he had the right to an attorney, and if he could not afford an attorney, one was to be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desired.