Title: Miranda v. Arizona - Crime Museum
Headings: Miranda v. Arizona
Miranda v. Arizona
Back to Crime Library

Content: Miranda v. Arizona - Crime Museum
Miranda v. Arizona
Home » Crime Library » Criminal Law » Miranda v. Arizona
The landmark case of Miranda v. Arizona addressed the question of whether interrogating individuals without notifying them of their rights to counsel and protection against self-incrimination was a violation of their Fifth Amendment rights. The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: “ No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The Miranda case arose from several cases that occurred throughout the country, all of which featured a defendant not given a warning of their rights at the start of their police interrogation. In several of these cases, the police had forced the petitioners to sign statements that were made without informing them of their right to counsel. These instances ( Vignera v. New York, California v. Stewart, Westover v. United States) were consolidated together in the Miranda case. The petitioner in the Miranda case was Ernesto Miranda, a Phoenix resident who was charged with rape, kidnapping, and robbery.