15.3: Miranda v. Arizona
PETITIONER RESPONDENT
Miranda Arizona
LOCATION
Phoenix, Arizona
DOCKET NO. DECIDED BY
759 Warren Court
CITATION
ARGUED
2/27/66; 2/28/66; 3/1/66
DECIDED
Jun 13, 1966
ADVOCATES
John J. Flynn et. al. for the petitioner, 759
Gary K. Nelson et. al. for the respondent, 759
Thurgood Marshall Solicitor General, for the United States, 761
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
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
Do the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination extend to the police interrogation of a suspect?
Co n c l u s i on
5–4 Decision for Miranda Majority Opinion by Earl Warren
| FOR | AGAINST |
|---|---|
|
Douglas Fortas Warren Brennan Black |
White Clark Stewart Harlan |
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. Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered the opinion of the 5-4 majority. The Supreme Court held that the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination is available in all settings. Therefore, prosecution may not use statements arising from a custodial interrogation of a suspect unless certain procedural safeguards were in place. Such safeguards include proof that the suspect was aware of his right to be silent, that any statement he makes may be used against him in court, etc.
The Court held that, in each of the cases, the interrogation techniques used did not technically fall into the category of coercive, but they failed to ensure that the defendant’s decision to speak with the police was entirely the product of his own free will. Justice Tom C. Clark wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority’s opinion created an unnecessarily strict interpretation of the Fifth Amendment that curtails the ability of the police to effectively execute their duties.