MIRANDA v. ARIZONA

Opinion of the Supreme Court of Arizona, April 22, 1965 . . . . . . .257

Opinion of the Supreme Court of California, People v. Stewart, March 25, 1965 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .267

Briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court

Brief for Petitioner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .274

Brief for Respondent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .294

Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court, June 13, 1966 . . . . . . . . . . . . .305

ISSUE

Criminal Procedure

HOW TO USE MILESTONES IN THE LAW

In the opinions^* and briefs^* that follow, the reader is invited to explore the issue of interrogation of criminal suspects and the question of when a suspect's confession to a crime should be admitted at trial. As you read this section, you may wish to consider the following questions:

• Why does the Constitution protect a criminal suspect from being a witness against himself or herself?
• Under what circumstances could a police officer ask an individual questions about a crime without having to give the person the Miranda warnings?
• What is the purpose of the right to counsel?

THIS CASE IN HISTORY

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say may be used for or against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney now or at any time during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to represent you, without cost, by the courts. [sample Miranda warning]

In the interest of space, only the opinions of the supreme courts of Arizona and California, which reached different results, and only the briefs in Miranda v. Arizona, are presented.

Law enforcement officers in movies, TV shows, and real life all utter some version of the Miranda warnings prior to interrogating a criminal suspect. In Miranda versus Arizona, the Supreme Court attempted to clarify a criminal suspect's privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment, and right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment, during interrogation. Miranda, which was actually a review of four similar cases at once, was the Court's attempt to balance the rights of a person accused of a crime with the rights of society to prosecute those who commit criminal acts. Since it was handed down in 1966, the Miranda case has been the subject of continuing analysis and debate, yet its requirements, for the most part, have withstood the test of time.