Title: Miranda v. Arizona - Wikipedia
Headings: Miranda v. Arizona
Miranda v. Arizona
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents
Background
Legal
Factual
Supreme Court decision
Opinion of the Court
Clark's concurrence in part, dissent in part
Harlan's dissent
White's dissent
Subsequent developments
Retrial
Reaction
Miranda warning
Legal developments
Effect on law enforcement
In popular culture
See also
References
Further reading
External links

Content: Attorney John Paul Frank, former law clerk to Justice Hugo Black, represented Miranda in his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Gary K. Nelson represented Arizona. Supreme Court decision
On June 13, 1966, the Supreme Court issued a 5–4 decision in Miranda's favor that overturned his conviction and remanded his case back to Arizona for retrial. Opinion of the Court
Chief Justice Earl Warren, the author of the majority opinion in Miranda
Five justices formed the majority and joined an opinion written by Chief Justice Earl Warren. The Court ruled that because of the coercive nature of the custodial interrogation by police (Warren cited several police training manuals that had not been provided in the arguments), no confession could be admissible under the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination clause and Sixth Amendment right to an attorney unless a suspect has been made aware of his rights and the suspect has then waived them: The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him. Thus, Miranda's conviction was overturned. The Court also made clear what must happen if a suspect chooses to exercise his or her rights: If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease ... If the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present.