Miranda Vs Arizona Case Analysis

This assignment provides an in-depth analysis of the Supreme Court case Miranda Vs Arizona (1966), which established the 'Miranda rights' for suspects in police custody. The case involved a crime where the defendant, Miranda, was questioned by police without being informed of his right to remain silent and request an attorney. The Supreme Court held that such statements were inadmissible and reversed the decision of the Arizona Supreme Court. This landmark case established new guidelines for police interrogations, requiring suspects to be informed of their rights before questioning.

Surname;1
Name
Instructor’s name
Course
Date
Miranda Vs Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Facts of the Case
The case involved a crime which took place in 1963, where Miranda had kidnapped and raped an
18 year old girl who identified him in a parade. When the police questioned Miranda, he
admitted to the crimes and later signed a confession. The confession asserted that he was aware
of his legal rights, according to the Fifth Amendment, but his Lawyer both at the Supreme Court
and at the trial court claimed that no one told the accused about his rights. At the trial, the
written confession was admitted and he was sentenced to 20-30 years imprisonment. The
appellate court upheld the trial’s court decision stating that obtaining the confession did not
violate Miranda’s constitutional rights (Sonneborn, p 32).
Issues
Whether statements obtained in custodial police interrogation were admissible. Whether, the
accused was ensured that his Fifth Amendment rights were accorded to him, and he was
privileged not to give self-incriminating evidence
Decisions/holdings

Surname;2
The Supreme Court held that Miranda rights serves to protect persons with in all settings who are
being compelled to self-incrimination. In view of this, the Supreme Court reversed the decision
of the Supreme Court of Arizona.
Reasoning/rationale
 Fifth Amendment privilege exists in all settings and outside criminal proceedings.
 The interrogators failed to show the defendants that it was entirely their will to speak
with the police (Soltero, p. 15-30).
Separate opinions
The dissenting opinions from Justice Harlan, Stewart and Justice Tom, asserted that there were
no specific precedents, which required that the accused to be informed of their rights, Justice
Analysis
This was a landmark case which established new guidelines now known as the “Miranda rights”
where the police need to inform the arrested persons of their right to remain silent and request an
attorney before questioning them.
References
Soltero, Carlos R. Latinos and American Law: Landmark Supreme Court Cases. University of Texas Press, 2006.
Sonneborn, Liz. Miranda V. Arizona: The Rights of the Accused. The Rosen Publishing Group, 2003.

Surname;3