Miranda v. Arizona
Significance, Tainted Evidence, Conviction Overturned, Impact, Miranda Rights, Further Readings
Petitioner
Ernesto Miranda
Respondent
State of Arizona
Petitioner's Claim
That a failure to inform the petitioner of his constitutional right to an attorney made his confession inadmissible in court.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
John Flynn
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Gary K. Nelson, Assistant Attorney General of Arizona
Justices for the Court
Hugo Lafayette Black, William J. Brennan, Jr., William O. Douglas, Abe Fortas, Earl Warren (writing for the Court)
Justices Dissenting
Tom C. Clark, John Marshall Harlan II, Potter Stewart, Byron R. White
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
13 June 1966
Decision
The Court extended a defendant's constitutional right to counsel to include pretrial questioning and required police to advise defendants of their rights.
Related Cases
- Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.S. 227 (1940).
- Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).
- Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964).
- Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 (1971).
- Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433 (1974).
- Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980).
Sources
Biskupic, Joan, and Elder Witt. Congressional Quarterly's Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1997.
Additional topics
- Moose Lodge No. v. Irvis (107 ) - Significance, The Issues At Stake, The Supreme Court Decides
- Miranda v. Arizona - Further Readings
- Miranda v. Arizona - Significance
- Miranda v. Arizona - Further Readings
- Miranda v. Arizona - Tainted Evidence
- Miranda v. Arizona - Conviction Overturned
- Miranda v. Arizona - Impact
- Miranda v. Arizona - Miranda Rights
- Other Free Encyclopedias
Law Library - American Law and Legal InformationNotable Trials and Court Cases - 1963 to 1972