Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966) 384 U.S. 436

MIRANDA V. ARIZONA

Whether the government is required to notify the arrested defendants of their Fifth Amendment constitutional rights against self-incrimination before they interrogate the defendants?

The Fifth Amendment requires that law enforcement officials advise suspects of their right to remain silent and to obtain an attorney during interrogations while in police custody, at no charge if need be.

Ernesto Miranda was arrested due to circumstantial evidence linking him to the kidnapping and rape of an 18-year-old woman 10 days earlier.
He confessed to the charges following a lengthy interrogation and signed a statement that said the confession was made knowingly and voluntarily.
Miranda never was told of his right to remain silent, of his right to have a lawyer, or of the fact that any of his statements during the interrogation could be used against him in court.
The court appointed lawyer of Miranda objected to the introduction of the written copy of his confession into evidence at trial, stating that his ignorance of his rights made the confession involuntary.
The objection was overruled, and Miranda was convicted of rape and kidnapping. He was sentenced to 20-30 years of imprisonment on each charge, with sentences to run concurrently.
On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona affirmed and held that Miranda’s constitutional rights were not violated because he did not specifically request counsel.
Later, an appeal was filed before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court held that the government needs to notify arrested individuals of their constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment, 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.
The court observed that under the Fifth Amendment, any statements that a defendant in custody makes during an interrogation are admissible as evidence only if law enforcement told the defendant of their rights, and the rights were either exercised or waived in a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent manner.
Therefore, the Supreme Court overturned Miranda’s conviction and remanded his case back to Arizona for retrial.