University Criminal Law Report: Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436

This report provides a detailed analysis of the landmark Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona (1966). It begins with an introduction to the case, highlighting its significance in US legal history, particularly concerning the Fifth and Sixth Amendments and the rights of the accused. The report summarizes the case, detailing the arrest of Ernesto Miranda, the interrogation process, and the subsequent confession obtained without informing him of his rights. It then explains the Supreme Court's ruling, which mandated that law enforcement must inform individuals of their constitutional rights, leading to the creation of Miranda Rights. The report explores the impact of the ruling on the American Criminal Justice system, including subsequent cases like Harris v. New York and Berkemer v. McCarty, and its challenges in cases like Rhode Island v. Innis and Missouri v. Seibert. The conclusion emphasizes the lasting impact of Miranda v. Arizona in safeguarding the rights of the accused and the evolving nature of the criminal justice system. The report is supported by a comprehensive bibliography of cited sources.

Uniiversity
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Introduction of Miranda Warning
Student Credentials
4/3/2020

Criminal Law 1
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Introduction
This case has been a landmark case in the history of US legal system. The supreme
court of US according to this case held that the police had this duty to inform the ones
arrested about their rights that have been provided by the fifth as well as sixth amendment of
US constitution. The Fifth Amendment right talks about the criminal’s rights to remain silent
while being arrested or taken for questioning and to refuse becoming a witness against
himself, while the Sixth Amendment guarantees an individual a right to an attorney to defend
him in the case.
Summary of the Case
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
This case initiated with the arrest of Ernesto Miranda in the year 1963, for being
charged for robbery, rape as well as kidnapping. No information regarding the rights were
provided to Miranda before the interrogation and as the interrogation ended, Miranda
confessed to all the crimes allegedly which was recorded. There was no counsel present in
defence of Miranda and the prosecution insisted on using this confession as the sole evidence
in this case. At the trial, he was convicted of kidnapping as well as rape and was sentenced
for imprisonment of 20 to 30 years (McBride, 2020). Later, an appeal was made in the
Supreme court of Arizona by him with the claim that police coerced him into confessing to
the crime and unconstitutional methods were used by the police to do that, to which, the court
disagreed and conviction was upheld. In the year 1966 this case was reviewed by the US
Supreme Court after repeated requests by Miranda, the court held that the sole confession
from Miranda cannot be used as evidence in the court, especially in the case where the

Criminal Law 2
alleged criminal was not informed about his rights and no counsel was provided to him. The
decision made with 5-4 votes, and was written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, it stated that, the
police had this duty that they needed to abide by to inform the alleged criminals or inn fact
any one they arrested to provide them with information about their rights that have been
provided by the US Constitution in the Fifth and Sixth Amendment (Justia, 2020).
Since the case was decided, many outburst and criticism was faced by the deciding
judges as some people thought that this would provide freedom to the criminals or might
hinder with the investigations. Since every individual has their rights, even the criminals, they
had to be provided with a certain extent of humanitarian aspect. This case ultimately led to
the formation of Miranda Rights. Before the case was decided, there used to be an
interrogation that was on general basis carried out just as it happened in the case of Miranda
himself in the initial stages. A few people who knew about their rights, did profit from them,
while the others who did not have a clue about it, were sentenced based on the confession that
was obtained from these individuals by the police by coercion or any other method (Oyez,
2020).
In the case of Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 (1971), it was declared if in a trial,
the confession of the criminal is stated before the testimony of the criminal himself, that is
not the breach of Miranda rights (Case Briefs, 2020). Another case, Berkemer v. McCarty,
468 U.S. 420 (1984), stated that the Miranda rights were to be enunciated to the criminal,
regardless of the grievance of the crime that had been committed (Justia, 2020). No one could
estrange the criminal of those rights except inn certain conditions. This case had a huge
impact on the American Criminal Justice system as it changed the way how the investigations
were to be carried out and the duties of the police increased burden on them. Yet it was a
necessary thing to do as rights of the criminals also mattered. Initially it was difficult, but
later became a measure that police had to get adapted to. In certain cases like the case of

Criminal Law 3
Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980), and the case of Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600
(2004) it became difficult for the police to work through, due to the Miranda Rights (Justia,
2020). As it elongated the whole process more and since no confessions could be obtained
without infringing the rights of criminals, some were set free as well.
Conclusion
Miranda v. Arizona opened so many doors for the criminals to have their say in the
system. Before this, some used to confess out of fear of the police harming them or anything
as such, while after the case was decided, criminals obtained the right of being a human and
now they had an option to speak for themselves. Though in cases where the criminal was
actually guilty as well, they were set free as well or even in some cases elongated the whole
process, where the individual spent most of their time outside in the open, instead of being
locked up in the prison. Such people are a threat to the society and infringe the security
measures of the country. Taking a step towards progress might be a difficult thing at first but
this did a lot of good to the individuals who were struggling to survive in the prison system
especially when they had not done anything wrong or committed any crime.

Criminal Law 4
Bibliography
Case Briefs. (2020). Harris v. New York. Retrieved April 03, 2020, from Case Briefs:
https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/evidence/evidence-keyed-to-mueller/
mpeachment-of-witnesses/harris-v-new-york/
Justia. (2020). Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984). Retrieved April 03, 2020, from
Justia: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/468/420/
Justia. (2020). Miranda v. Arizona (1966). Retrieved April 03, 2020, from Justia:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/384/436/
Justia. (2020). Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004). Retrieved April 03, 2020, from
Justia: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/542/600/
McBride, A. (2020). Miranda v. Arizona (1966). Retrieved April 03, 2020, from Thirteen:
https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_miranda.html
Oyez. (2020). Miranda v. Arizona. Retrieved April 03, 2020, from Oyez:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1965/759