Summary Of Miranda Vs Arizona Case Brief

Case Brief

Case: Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

Facts: The Miranda warning, which informs criminal suspects of their rights to remain silent and to an attorney while they are in police custody or being questioned in a detention facility, was created by the landmark Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona (1966). It was brought by Ernesto Miranda, who was detained under the charges of rape, kidnapping and robbery. He wasn't told of his right to an attorney or the right to remain silent before being questioned by the police, so Miranda admitted to the crimes while being interviewed. The confession was admitted into evidence during the trial, and Miranda was found guilty.

Procedural History: After Miranda was convicted, he appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court who reaffirmed his rights had not been violated. Miranda then appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

Issue: Does the Sixth Amendment, a right to an attorney, apply during a police interrogation of a suspect as well as the Fifth Amendment, which protects self-incrimination?

Holding: The United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of Miranda in a 5 to 4 decision.

This meant that the accused had to be made fully aware of his right to remain silent and given the opportunity to exercise it. These new procedural protections include warning suspects that they have the right to silence, cautioning them that anything they say can be used against them in court, and informing them that they have the right to an attorney, who can be chosen by the defendant or appointed to them if they cannot afford