Search results
MIRANDA v. ARIZONA . 384 U.S. 436 (1966) Chief Justice W. ARREN. delivered the opinion of the Court. The cases before us raise questions which go to the roots of our concepts of American criminal jurisprudence: the restraints society must observe consistent with the Federal Constitution in prosecuting individuals for crime.
A PDF file of a case brief for Miranda v. Arizona, a landmark Supreme Court decision that established the right to remain silent and the right to counsel during police interrogation. The brief summarizes the facts, issues, decisions, and dissents of the case, as well as related papers and articles.
Miranda v. Arizona established that suspects must be informed of their right to remain silent and their right to an attorney prior to a custodial interrogation. Ernesto Miranda was interrogated without being informed of his rights and confessed to crimes.
29 lip 2020 · The lead case involved Ernesto Miranda, whom a crime victim had identified in 1963 in a police lineup. Miranda was arrested and charged with rape and kidnapping.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona addressed four different cases involving custodial interrogations. In each of these cases, the defendant was questioned by police officers, detectives, or a prosecuting attorney in a room in which he was cut off from the outside world.
The Miranda v. Arizona case established that the police must inform suspects of their Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and Sixth Amendment right to counsel before questioning. Ernesto Miranda was not informed of these rights before confessing to rape and kidnapping.
Brief Fact Summary. The defendants offered incriminating evidence during police interrogations without prior notification of their rights under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution (the “Constitution”).
