Title: Miranda v. Arizona | Oyez
Headings: Miranda
v.
Arizona

Miranda v. Arizona
Media
Opinions
Petitioner
Respondent
Location
Docket no.
Decided by
Citation
Argued
Decided
Advocates
Facts of the case
Question
Conclusion
5–4 decision for Miranda
majority opinion by Earl Warren

Content: Miranda v. Arizona | Oyez
Miranda v. Arizona
Media
Oral Argument - February 28, 1966
Oral Argument - March 01, 1966
Oral Argument - March 01, 1966
Oral Argument - March 01, 1966
Oral Argument - March 02, 1966
Opinions
Syllabus
View Case
Petitioner
Miranda
Respondent
Arizona
Location
Phoenix, Arizona
Docket no. 759
Decided by
Warren Court
Citation
384 US 436 (1966)
Argued
Feb 28 - 2, 1966
Decided
Jun 13, 1966
Advocates
John J. Flynn for the petitioner, 759
Victor M. Earle, III for the petitioner, 760
F. Conger Fawcett for the petitioner, 761
Gordon Ringer for the petitioner, 584
Gary K. Nelson for the respondent, 759
William I. Siegel for the respondent, 760
Thurgood Marshall Solicitor General, for the United States, 761
William A. Norris for the respondent, 584
Telford Taylor for the State of New York as amicus curiae in all cases by special leave of the Court
Duane R. Nedrud for the National District Attorneys' Association, as amicus curiae
Facts of the case
This case represents the consolidation of four cases, in each of which the defendant confessed guilt after being subjected to a variety of interrogation techniques without being informed of his Fifth Amendment rights during an interrogation. On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in his house and brought to the police station where he was questioned by police officers in connection with a kidnapping and rape. After two hours of interrogation, the police obtained a written confession from Miranda. The written confession was admitted into evidence at trial despite the objection of the defense attorney and the fact that the police officers admitted that they had not advised Miranda of his right to have an attorney present during the interrogation. The jury found Miranda guilty. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona affirmed and held that Miranda’s constitutional rights were not violated because he did not specifically request counsel. Question
Does the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination extend to the police interrogation of a suspect? Conclusion
Sort: by seniority
by ideology
<< decision 1 of 1 >>
5–4 decision for Miranda
majority opinion by Earl Warren
The Fifth Amendment requires that law enforcement officials advise suspects of their right to remain silent and to obtain an attorney during interrogations while in police custody.