Supreme Court Decisions: Miranda v. Arizona

The Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona addressed four different cases involving custodial interrogations.

"You have the right to remain silent." Few legal phrases are as well known as this one. Yet it did not exist until June 13, 1966, when the U.S. Supreme Court first announced it as a principle of American law in the landmark case of Miranda v. Arizona.

Under the Fifth Amendment, any statements that a defendant in custody makes during an interrogation are admissible as evidence at a criminal trial only if law enforcement told the defendant of the right to remain silent and the right to speak with an attorney before the interrogation started, and the rights were either exercised or waived in a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent manner.

U.S. Reports Volume 384; October Term, 1965; Miranda v. Arizona.

Miranda v. Arizona was a case brought to the Supreme Court in 1966 after Ernesto Miranda appealed his guilty conviction of kidnapping and rape. In his appeal, Miranda claimed he was unaware of his right to remain silent and his resulting confession should not be used to incriminate him. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Miranda and established the Miranda Warning. This warning is now recited in most instances of arrest to ensure the accused people are aware of their rights.

Two decisions clarifying the rights of the accused.

A Credo Reference landing page on Miranda v. Arizona. This page includes links to reference works, journal articles, and a mind map.

In this milestone decision, the Supreme Court established the rights of criminal suspects during police interrogations, including the right to an attorney and the right against self-incrimination.