Miranda v Arizona; 384 US 436

FACTS:
The Supreme Court of the United consolidated four separate cases with issues regarding the admissibility of evidence obtained during police interrogations. In each of these cases, the defendant, while in police custody, was questioned by police officers, detectives, or a prosecuting attorney in a room in which he was cut off from the outside world. None of the defendants was given a full and effective warning of his rights at the outset of the interrogation process. In all four cases, the questioning elicited oral admissions, and, in three of them, signed statements as well, which were admitted at their trials. All defendants were convicted, and all convictions were affirmed on appeal.

ISSUE(S):
Whether or not the government is required to inform the arrested defendants of their constitutional rights against self-incrimination before they interrogate the defendants.

RULING:
YES. 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.

Tags: , ,

Category: Legal Chyme

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *