Title: Why the Miranda Decision Still Matters 51 Years Later | LawForSeniors.org
Headings: How Government Works
How Government Works
Why the Miranda Decision Still Matters 51 Years Later
History of the Miranda Decision
On June 13, 1966, the United States Supreme Court published its opinion in Miranda v. Arizona. The Court held:
The Impact of Miranda on Modern Police Work
Similar Protections in Other Countries
Resources

Content: Flynn and Frank, who were involved in human rights and constitutional law issues, wrote a 2,500-word petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, arguing that Miranda’s Fifth Amendment rights were violated because the police failed to inform him of his rights. In November,1965, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the Miranda case along with three other similar cases. The constitutional issues in Miranda v. Arizona arose from an earlier Supreme Court decision, Escobedo v. Illinois where the Court ruled that once the police have settled on a suspect, they cannot refuse to allow the suspect the right to counsel and the right to remain silent. On June 13, 1966, the United States Supreme Court published its opinion in Miranda v. Arizona. The Court held: The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. As for the procedural safeguards to be employed, unless other fully effective means are devised to inform accused persons of their right to silence and to assure a continuous opportunity to exercise it, the following measures are required. Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently.