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: While in custody, Miranda, who was described as being severely mentally disturbed and whose home country did not use English as its primary language, was questioned by police in the “interrogation room” for two hours by a pair of officers. At no time did the officers tell him that he had the right to have an attorney present. While in custody, Miranda confessed to a crime and signed a written confession with a printed paragraph at the top of the document stating that his confession was voluntary and that Miranda drafted it having “full knowledge of his legal rights” as well as an “understanding that any statement” he made may be used against him. Miranda was subsequently convicted of kidnapping and rape after a trial in which the written confession was allowed to be used as evidence against him. In that same trial, testimony of the interrogating officers which confirmed Miranda’s oral confession was also admitted into evidence. 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”.