Miranda v. Arizona: Examining Legal Implications and Outcomes

This case study provides a comprehensive analysis of Miranda v. Arizona, a landmark Supreme Court case. The study examines the facts of the case, the legal issues involved, and the court's decision, focusing on the Fifth Amendment and the rights of the accused during custodial interrogations. It explores the reasoning behind the court's ruling and its impact on law enforcement procedures, including the establishment of Miranda rights. The study references legal precedents and dissenting opinions, offering a detailed understanding of the case's significance in American legal history. The analysis also covers the implications of the ruling and its continued relevance in contemporary legal settings. The document includes citations of relevant sources, such as Soltero and Sonneborn, to support the analysis. This case study is intended to provide a clear understanding of the legal principles and implications of Miranda v. Arizona, a key case in constitutional law.

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