right to remain silent
Miranda v. Arizona, 1966
5-4
decision
In a landmark court case
determined by the
Supreme Court, Chief
Justice Warren announced
that in the Miranda Versus
Arizona case, there was a
majority 5-4 vote in favor
of Ernesto Miranda.
The majority included:
Chief Justice Warren,
Justice Black,
Justice Douglas,
Justice Brennan, and
Justice Fortas
The Dissenting included:
Justice Harlan,
Justice Stewart, and
Justice White
The concuring included
Justice Clark.
Chief Justice Warren, whom
alongside 9 other justices
determined a 5-4 Supreme
Court vote in favor of Ernesto
Miranda
April 6, 2006
surprising day in phoenix
On March 13, 1963 in Phoenix, Arizona
a man by the name of Ernesto Miranda
was arrested in his home with a charge
of armed robbery. The amount he stole
from the bank clerk amounted to only
eight dollars in profit. His record,
however, was is no good shape with a
previous arrest for armed robbery and a Ernesto Miranda
juvenile record including attempted
rape, assault and burglary. When in Because Miranda had never been
police custody he was transported to told his constitutional rights the
the Phoenix police station and lead to document was illegal, and therefore
the interrogation room. In the room the confession should be
Miranda confessed to several other suppressed. The judge, however,
crimes such as kidnapping and rape. . allowed the confession to be used
Miranda had never been informed that and Miranda was convicted on all
he had the right to a lawyer or to accounts including his confessions.
remain silent. When the case went to For each account Miranda was
trial Miranda’s defense argued the sentenced to 20 to 30 years
point that the document of Miranda’s running concurrently.
confession had been signed stating Continued: Miranda Pg. 2
that he had understood his rights.
Pre-questioning
"You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions. Do you understand?"
The officer must receive a verbal or written confirmation that the suspect understands his
right to remain silent. The officer is then to say "Anything you do say can and will be used
against you in a court of law. Do you understand?" Once again, as with all the Miranda
rights, the officer must have a verbal or written acknowledgement of his right. The next
statement is "You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to
have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future. Do you understand?" That
statement is followed by "If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you
before any questioning if you wish. Do you understand?" The next Miranda right states, "If
you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present you will still have the right
to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney. Do you understand?" The last
Miranda right specifically asks "Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained
them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?"
 Miranda Continued 1… The Supreme Court Sees Miranda
Shortly after being sentenced, Miranda and his defense appealed the case to the Supreme
Court. They charged that the trial was unconstitutional, because Miranda was not told his
legal rights as it is law to do. It was obvious to that Miranda had not been told his rights
before he was questioned at the police station. The court said that it was not legal that
Miranda had not been told that he did not have to incriminate himself, therefore, all
statements given my Miranda we considered to be inadmissible. The court decided that
indeed Miranda’s case was unconstitutional because he had never been given his rights and
reversed the decision. From this case, the Supreme Court established that before any kind of
interrogation, a suspect must be read his or her rights. The law was also changed how a
suspect was read his or her rights.

Majority Opinion Dissenting Opinion

VIVA LAStated
MIRANDA!
Justice Harlan
Justice Warren stated
Miranda v. Arizona was a case that completely revolutionized society. From it came the Miranda
“The cases beforeRights;
us raisethe
questions
famouswhich
“The rules do not serve due process interests in preventing blatant coercion
words often heard on popular television shows, movies, and the like. The
go to the roots of our concepts
Parks of American
group feels that this casesince
was. extremely
. . they doimportant
nothing toto contain theofpoliceman
the rights who criminal
all Americans, is prepared to lie from
criminal jurisprudence:
or not. the restraints
Though the start…”
societydid confess
Miranda and was guilty for his crime, his actions and the lawsuit that
must observe consistent with the Federal
followed changed the country for the better. Under the fifth amendment of the Constitution,
citizens have
Constitution in prosecuting “Whatinformation
the rightforto withhold
individuals the Court largely ignores
and remain is so
to do that its arules
until legalimpair, if they will
representative is not
crime.” present. The American eventually serve wholly to frustrate, an instrument of law enforcement that has
principle of "innocent until proven guilty" is a much more sensible
approach to law, and we believe thatquite
long and this particular
reasonably case sustains
been the constitutional
thought worth the price rights
paidoffor it. There can
American citizens, and
Chief Justice Warren then draws attention to possibly saves the lives of the potentially innocent that are accused of a
be little doubt that the Court's new code would markedly decrease the number
the 5th amendment, “The Fifth Amendment VIVA LA MIRANDA!
of confessions…”
privilege is so fundamental to our system of
constitutional rule and the expedient of
giving an adequate warning as to the
availability of the privilege so simple…” VIVA LA MIRANDA!
Miranda v. Arizona was a case that completely revolutionized society.
As to the assumption of police officers From it came the Miranda Rights; the famous words often heard on
thinking that the person in question knows popular television shows, movies, and the like. The Parks group feels that
their rights, Chief Justice Warren states, “No
amount of circumstantial evidence that the
this case was extremely important to the rights of all Americans, criminal
person may have been aware of this right or not. Though Miranda did confess and was guilty for his crime, his
will suffice to stand in its stead: Only actions and the lawsuit that followed changed the country for the better.
through such a warning is there Under the fifth amendment of the Constitution, citizens have the right to
ascertainable assurance that the accused withhold information and remain to do so until a legal representative is
was aware of this right…” present. The American principle of "innocent until proven guilty" is a
much more sensible approach to law, and we believe that this particular
case sustains the constitutional rights of American citizens, and possibly
saves the lives of the potentially innocent that are accused of a crime .
they did not commit

Supreme Court, 1966