Miranda v. Arizona

Also found in: Legal, Wikipedia.

Miranda v. Arizona,

U.S. Supreme Court case (1966) in the area of due process of law (see Fourteenth AmendmentFourteenth Amendment,
addition to the U.S. Constitution, adopted 1868. The amendment comprises five sections. Section 1

Section 1 of the amendment declares that all persons born or naturalized in the United States are American citizens and citizens of their state
..... Click the link for more information.
). The decision reversed an Arizona court's conviction of Ernesto Miranda on kidnapping and rape charges. Identified in a police lineup, Miranda had been questioned, had confessed, and had signed a written statement without being told that he had a right to a lawyer; his confession was used at trial. In overturning Miranda's conviction, Chief Justice Earl WarrenWarren, Earl,
1891–1974, American public official and 14th chief justice of the United States (1953–69), b. Los Angeles. He graduated from the Univ. of California Law School in 1912. Admitted (1914) to the bar, he practiced in Oakland, Calif.
..... Click the link for more information.
 held that the prosecution may not use statements made by a person in police custody unless certain minimum procedural safeguards were in place. Before questioning, a person must be given what is now known as a "Miranda warning": that you have the right to remain silent; that anything you say may be used as evidence against you; that you may request the presence of an attorney, either retained by you or appointed by the court; and that you have the right, even after beginning to answer questions, to stop answering or request an attorney. The Miranda decision was one of the most controversial of the Warren Court. Under Chief Justices Warren BurgerBurger, Warren Earl,
1907–95, American jurist, 15th chief justice of the United States (1969–86), b. St. Paul, Minn. After receiving his law degree in 1931 from St.
..... Click the link for more information.
 and William RehnquistRehnquist, William Hubbs
, 1924–2005, American public official, 16th chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (1986–2005), b. Milwaukee, Wis., as William Donald Rehnquist. After receiving his law degree from Stanford Univ.
..... Click the link for more information.
 (who as a legal spokesman for the Nixon administration had proposed that Miranda be overturned), a Supreme Court more friendly to police operations limited its scope several times, although failing to reverse its central holding, and in 2000 the Rehnquist court, in an opinion authored by the chief justice, reaffirmed the original decision as a constitutional rule that may not be overturned by an act of Congress. Under a 2010 Supreme Court ruling, when a person has invoked Miranda rights, law-enforcement officials may attempt to resume questioning without a lawyer present 14 days after that person has been released from custody. Civil liberties groups have continued to protest that police routinely omit Miranda warnings.
References in periodicals archive ?
Brown maintains that the statements were obtained in violation of his constitutional right against self-incrimination because they were made during a custodial interrogation without the warnings required by Miranda v.
Of all the Supreme Court's criminal procedure decisions of the twentieth century, Miranda v.
Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote the opinion in Miranda v.
13 of this Teacher's Guide), which features an annotated excerpt from the majority opinion in Miranda v.
8) The trial court excluded the statement "The gun is over there," as well as the handgun, on the grounds that the officer did not give Quarles the warnings required by Miranda v.
This Article examines the Supreme Court's recent decisions that diminish the constitutional protections enumerated in its landmark decision of Miranda v.
It came into force through a Supreme Court decision in the 1966 Miranda v.
Craighead, (4) the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was faced with the question of whether an in-home interrogation of a suspect in a police-dominated environment was "custodial" and required a reading of a suspect's rights as guaranteed by Miranda v.
criminal procedure, especially in context to Miranda v.
Brief of the American Civil Liberties Union, Amicus Curiae, at 5-31, Miranda v.
Younger, Interrogation of Criminal Defendants -- Some Views on Miranda v.