Title: Miranda v. Arizona Case Summary: What You Need to Know - FindLaw
Headings: Miranda v. Arizona Case Summary: What You Need to Know
Miranda v. Arizona Case Summary: What You Need to Know
Background of the Case
What Is "Self-Incrimination?"
Sixth Amendment Right to An Attorney
Why Is Miranda v. Arizona Important?
FindLaw Newsletters
Stay up-to-date with FindLaw's newsletter for legal professionals
What Does It Mean to Be "In Custody?"
Can the Police Ask Questions Without It Being an Interrogation?
Does Answering Questions from Police Count as a Waiver of Rights?

Content: Background of the Case
The Supreme Court's decision was a consolidation of four cases: Miranda v. Arizona
Vignera v. New York
Westover v. United States
California v. Stewart
In all four, someone facing criminal charges was questioned by law enforcement while they were "cut off from the outside world." Ernesto Miranda, whose name is now attached to the famous decision, was brought in by Phoenix police officers as a person of interest in the kidnapping and rape of an 18-year-old girl. He voluntarily participated in a police line-up. When the line-up was over, police interrogated Miranda for two hours until he confessed to the crime. He was never informed of his right to have an attorney present during interrogation. Nor was he told he had the right to remain silent. And although his confession differed slightly from the victim's description of the incident, he was convicted of the crime. Because he was not adequately informed of his rights, the Supreme Court reversed Miranda's conviction and ordered that he have a new trial. On retrial, his confession was not given as evidence.