Miranda v. arizona
Year: 1966
Result: 5-4, favor Miranda
Related Constitutional issue/Amendment: 5th Amendment (self incrimination)
Civil rights or Civil liberties: Civil liberties
Significance/precedent: Statements that come from a confession where the criminal is not aware of his 5th Amendment (Miranda) rights before confessing, can not be used to convict said criminal. This prevents against self-incrimination that stems from interrogations and also against criminals walking due to the denial of consulting with your lawyer. Miranda Warning: “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you?”
Quote from majority opinion: “ 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.”
Summary of dissent: There was no historical precedent for the decision. The ruling was seen as an example of weak law enforcement that could be used by future criminals to escape justice.
6-word summary: 5th Amendment, Miranda rights, Self-incrimination
Result: 5-4, favor Miranda
Related Constitutional issue/Amendment: 5th Amendment (self incrimination)
Civil rights or Civil liberties: Civil liberties
Significance/precedent: Statements that come from a confession where the criminal is not aware of his 5th Amendment (Miranda) rights before confessing, can not be used to convict said criminal. This prevents against self-incrimination that stems from interrogations and also against criminals walking due to the denial of consulting with your lawyer. Miranda Warning: “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you?”
Quote from majority opinion: “ 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.”
Summary of dissent: There was no historical precedent for the decision. The ruling was seen as an example of weak law enforcement that could be used by future criminals to escape justice.
6-word summary: 5th Amendment, Miranda rights, Self-incrimination