Title: Miranda v. Arizona (1966) – U.S. Conlawpedia
Headings: Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
Summary
First Timeline
1897
Bram v. United States
1936
Brown v. Mississipi
March 13, 1963
Miranda's arrest
March 18, 1963
Gideon v. Wainwright
June 1963
Original judgement in front of the Superior Court of Maricopa County Arizona
June 22, 1964
Escobedo v. Illinois
February 28, 1966 — March 2, 1966
Case argued in front of the Supreme Court
Bram v. United States
Brown v. Mississipi
Miranda's arrest
Gideon v. Wainwright
Original judgement in front of the Superior Court of Maricopa County Arizona
Escobedo v. Illinois
Case argued in front of the Supreme Court
Background
Procedural History
Issue
Arguments by Petitioner
Arguments by Respondent
Decision
Majority Opinion (Warren)
Dissenting in Part (Clark)
Dissenting Opinion (Harlan)
Dissenting Opinion (White)
Full Text of Opinions
Decision Analysis
Significance/ Impact
Second Timeline
June 13, 1966
Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court Decision
June 17, 1976
Doyle v. Ohio
May 18, 1981
Edwards v. Arizona
June 12, 1984
New York v. Quarles
June 4, 1990
Illinois v. Perkins
Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court Decision
Doyle v. Ohio
Edwards v. Arizona
New York v. Quarles
Illinois v. Perkins
Scholarly Commentary and Debate
Constitutional Provisions
Governmental Law or Action Under Review
Important Precedents
Important Subsequent Cases
Web Resources
Academic Book, Articles and Law Reviews
Contributors
Tasks for Future Contributors

Content: Miranda v. Arizona (1966) – U.S. Conlawpedia
Skip to content
Main Menu
Home
Constitutional Text
Constitutional Cases
Constitutional Hodgepodge
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
Summary
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1996), was a landmark U. S. Supreme Court case which ruled that prior to police interrogation, apprehended criminal suspects must be briefed of their constitutional rights addressed in the sixth amendment, right to an attorney and fifth amendment, rights of self incrimination. Ernesto Miranda appealed his rape and child kidnapping charges to the U. S. Supreme Court. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled police officers, detectives and/or other law enforcement officers must inform criminal suspects of their right to an attorney as well as their rights against self incrimination in order for evidence to be admissible in court. It was established that the defendant must know, understand, and explicitly waive these constitutional rights in order for them to be used at trial. Due to this ruling police officers, as shown in popular media, must read the detained suspect his or her Miranda Rights. First Timeline
TimelineJS Embed
U.S. Constitution
Loading Image
1897
Bram v. United States
The Constitution is invoked for the first time to limit police interrogations. The Supreme Court claims that the Fifth Amendment prohibits involontary confessions from being admissible in court. Police confession room
Loading Image
1936
Brown v. Mississipi
The Supreme Court decides that a confession obtained via physical torture is inadmissible in court because it violates the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. The Documentary Group
Photo of Ernesto Miranda
Loading Image
March 13, 1963
Miranda's arrest
Miranda is arrested for rape and kidnapping. After two hours of interrogation by police officers, he signs a confession to the crimes he was charged for.