Title: Miranda v. Arizona Case Brief
Headings: v.
Miranda v. Arizona
Miranda v. Arizona Summary
Key Players in Miranda v. Arizona
Miranda v. Arizona Brief
Miranda v. Arizona Facts
The Miranda v. Arizona Decision
Key Takeaways for Law Students

Content: Key to the Supreme Court of Arizona’s finding that the elicitation of Miranda’s confession and the use of his confession at trial were not unconstitutional was the fact that no request for counsel was made by Miranda. Miranda appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court from the Arizona Supreme Court decision. The Miranda v. Arizona Decision
The outcome of this case was the overturning of Miranda’s conviction based on the finding that Miranda was not given appropriate warnings of his right to an attorney prior to questioning by the police and his ensuing confession. The Court found that the “privilege against self-incrimination” included in the Fifth Amendment was not preserved for Miranda because of this failure to warn Miranda. The Court’s basic ruling was that, in order to use statements gathered from a custodial interrogation as evidence in a trial, a prosecutor must “demonstrate the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination”. The Court went on to state that the specific requirements for those safeguards include the following: a warning of the right to remain silent, a warning that anything the suspect says may be used against him, and a warning that the suspect has a right to an attorney. It described how waiver of those rights is allowed if such waiver is voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. Silence does not constitute waiver. The Court noted that, during interrogation, once the suspect asks for an attorney, any present questioning must cease.