Pennsylvania v. Muniz
Significance, Exception From Miranda's Coverage, Exceptions Undermine Miranda, Impact
Petitioner
State of Pennsylvania
Respondent
Inocencio Muniz
Petitioner's Claim
That videotaped evidence should not be suppressed although Miranda warnings were not given.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
J. Michael Eakin
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Richard F. Maffett, Jr.
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr. (writing for the Court), Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, John Paul Stevens, Byron R. White
Justices Dissenting
Thurgood Marshall
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
18 June 1990
Decision
The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination relates only to evidence of a testimonial or communicative nature, not physical evidence.
Related Cases
- Holt v. United States, 218 U.S. 245 (1910).
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966).
- Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980).
- Doe v. United States, 487 U.S. 201 (1988).
Further Readings
- Biskupic, Joan, and Elder Witt, eds. Congressional Quarterly's Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1996.
Additional topics
- Penry v. Lynaugh - Significance, Supreme Court Finds Application Of Capital Punishment To The Mentally Retarded Constitutional, Impact, Further Readings
- Payne v. Tennessee - Significance, The Crime, The Trial, A Defendant's Rights, Further Readings
- Pennsylvania v. Muniz - Significance
- Pennsylvania v. Muniz - Exception From Miranda's Coverage
- Pennsylvania v. Muniz - Exceptions Undermine Miranda
- Pennsylvania v. Muniz - Impact
- Other Free Encyclopedias
Law Library - American Law and Legal InformationNotable Trials and Court Cases - 1989 to 1994