Title: Miranda v. Arizona - Case Summary and Case Brief
Headings: Miranda v. Arizona
Miranda v. Arizona
Case Summary of Miranda v. Arizona:
Miranda v. Arizona Case Brief
Statement of Facts:
Procedural History:
Issue (s) and Holding:
Judgment:
Rule of Law or Legal Principle applied:
Reasoning:
Concurring/ Dissenting Opinion (s):
Significance:
Student Resources:

Content: Since Miranda was not informed of his rights, his confession was coerced by police in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Yes. Once subject to custodial interrogation, the Fifth Amendment requires that a suspect is informed of their constitutional rights to: remain silent, have an attorney present, if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to him and that any statement made may later be used against them at trial. The court took into consideration common police tactics and police instruction manuals and determined that each uncovered an interrogation procedure aimed at attaining confessions through coercive means. For example, many occur when the suspect is isolated and put in unfamiliar or intimidating surroundings. The Court held that police are encouraged to use trickery and make the false promises necessary to obtain a confession. Although such methods are not physically coercive, the interrogation process is aimed at putting the suspect in an emotionally vulnerable state so his judgment is impaired. These coercive tactics are a violation of the Fifth Amendment. To ensure that a confession is obtained voluntarily, a suspect must be informed of his constitutional right against self-incrimination in addition to the consequences of a waiver.