Miranda v. Arizona
· Case: Miranda v. Arizona
· Year: 1966
· Result: 5-4, favor Miranda
· Related constitutional issue/amendment:Amendment 5: Self-Incrimination
· Civil rights or Civil liberties: Civil Liberties
· Significance/ Precedent: The Court said that prosecutors could not use statements that came from interrogations of defendants unless they followed proper procedure. No one can self-incriminate themselves. The result of this case gave birth to the Miranda warning which gave more rights to the accused by stating the charge, the rights of the accused, and the right to a lawyer.
· Quote from majority opinion: “There can be no doubt that the Fifth Amendment privilege is available outside of criminal court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way from being compelled to incriminate themselves… 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 againstself-incrimination. By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiatedby law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way…withoutproper safeguards the process of in-custody interrogation of persons suspected or accused of crime contains inherently compelling pressures which work to undermine the individual’s will to resist and to compel him to speak where he would otherwise do so freely. Therefore, a defendant must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he sayscan be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to thepresence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.”
·Illustration/image: See Below
· 6-word summary: No self incrimination, more accused rights
· Year: 1966
· Result: 5-4, favor Miranda
· Related constitutional issue/amendment:Amendment 5: Self-Incrimination
· Civil rights or Civil liberties: Civil Liberties
· Significance/ Precedent: The Court said that prosecutors could not use statements that came from interrogations of defendants unless they followed proper procedure. No one can self-incriminate themselves. The result of this case gave birth to the Miranda warning which gave more rights to the accused by stating the charge, the rights of the accused, and the right to a lawyer.
· Quote from majority opinion: “There can be no doubt that the Fifth Amendment privilege is available outside of criminal court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way from being compelled to incriminate themselves… 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 againstself-incrimination. By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiatedby law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way…withoutproper safeguards the process of in-custody interrogation of persons suspected or accused of crime contains inherently compelling pressures which work to undermine the individual’s will to resist and to compel him to speak where he would otherwise do so freely. Therefore, a defendant must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he sayscan be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to thepresence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.”
·Illustration/image: See Below
· 6-word summary: No self incrimination, more accused rights