Miranda V Arizona

Miranda v.
Arizona
384 U.S. 436 (1966)
FACTS:
The Supreme Court of the United States (“Supreme Court”) consolidated four
separate cases with issues regarding the admissibility of evidence obtained during
police interrogations.
The first Defendant, Ernesto Miranda (“Mr. Miranda”), was arrested for kidnapping
and rape. Mr. Miranda was an immigrant, and although the officers did not notify Mr.
Miranda of his rights, he signed a confession after two hours of investigation. The
signed statement included a statement that Mr. Miranda was aware of his rights.
The second Defendant, Michael Vignera (“Mr. Vignera”), was arrested for robbery.
Mr. Vignera orally admitted to the robbery to the first officer after the arrest, and he
was held in detention for eight hours before he made an admission to an assistant
district attorney. There was no evidence that he was notified of his Fifth Amendment
constitutional rights.
The third Defendant, Carl Calvin Westover (“Mr. Westover”), was arrested for two
robberies. Mr. Westover was questioned over fourteen hours by local police, and
then was handed to Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) agents, who were able to
get signed confessions from Mr. Westover. The authorities did not notify Mr.
Westover of his Fifth Amendment constitutional rights.
The fourth Defendant, Roy Allen Stewart (“Mr. Stewart”), was arrested, along with
members of his family (although there was no evidence of any wrongdoing by his
family) for a series of purse snatches. There was no evidence that Mr. Stewart was
notified of his rights. After nine interrogations, Mr. Stewart admitted to the crimes.
ISSUES:
Whether the government is required to notify the arrested defendants of their Fifth
Amendment constitutional rights against self-incrimination before they interrogate the
defendants?
HELD:
The government needs to notify arrested individuals of their Fifth Amendment

constitutional rights, specifically: their right to remain silent; an explanation that
anything they say could be used against them in court; their right to counsel; and
their right to have counsel appointed to represent them if necessary. Without this
notification, anything admitted by an arrestee in an interrogation will not be
admissible in court.
The Court holding will be spelled out with some specificity in the pages which
follow, but, briefly stated, it is this: the prosecution may not use statements,
whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the
defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to
secure the privilege against self-incrimination. By custodial interrogation, we mean
questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into
custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. As for
the procedural safeguards to be employed, unless other fully effective means are
devised to inform accused persons of their right of silence and to assure a
continuous opportunity to exercise it, the following measures are required. Prior to
any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that
any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has
a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. The defendant
may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily,
knowingly and intelligently. If, however, he indicates in any manner and at any stage
of the process that he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking, there can
be no questioning. Likewise, if the individual is alone and indicates in any manner
that he does not wish to be interrogated, the police may not question him. The mere
fact that he may have answered some questions or volunteered some statements on
his own does not deprive him of the right to refrain from answering any further
inquiries until he has consulted with an attorney and thereafter consents to be
questioned.
Additional Notes
Custodial Investigation – any questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after

a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of acton
in any significant way.
RA 7348 (AN ACT DEFINING CERTAIN RIGHTS OF PERSON ARRESTED, DETAINED OR UNDER CUSTODIAL
INVESTIGATION AS WELL AS THE DUTIES OF THE ARRESTING, DETAINING AND INVESTIGATING OFFICERS, AND
PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF) – Custodial investigation shall include the
practice of issuing an invitation to a person who is investigated in connection with an
offense he is suspected to have committed without prejudice to the liability of the
inviting officer for any violation of law.
Extrajudicial confession to be admissible must be:

 Voluntary
 With assistance of counsel
 In writing
 Express

Miranda V Arizona

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Miranda V Arizona

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Miranda V Arizona

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Miranda v.

The government needs to notify arrested individuals of their Fifth Amendment

Custodial Investigation – any questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after

Extrajudicial confession to be admissible must be:

You might also like