1 minute read

Harris v. New York

Miranda V. Arizona



In a significant Supreme Court decision of 1966, the Court ruled that evidence, such as confessional statements made to police, could not be used in court if the defendant had not been informed of his right to a lawyer, as well as instructed that anything he or she said could be used against them in court. It gave suspects the option of remaining silent and let them know that if they could not afford a lawyer, one would be provided free of charge. These admonitions came to be known as the Miranda warnings and were designed to curb potential police misconduct. Harris's interrogation happened before Miranda rule went into effect, but the rules governing whether or not statements had been "coerced" still applied in his case.



Miranda was a controversial Supreme Court decision at the time, issued by the Warren Court, a liberal-leaning majority led by Chief Justice Earl Warren. During the 1968 presidential campaign, Republican candidate Richard M. Nixon condemned the Warren Court and its liberal slant. During his first term in office, Nixon was able to appoint replacements for retiring justices, naming Burger chief justice and sending the conservative Blackmun to the bench. By the time Harris v. New York reached the High Court in 1971, these two, along with the three justices who had dissented in the Miranda case, formed a conservative "law-and-order" voting block.

Additional topics

Law Library - American Law and Legal InformationNotable Trials and Court Cases - 1963 to 1972Harris v. New York - Alleged Heroin Sale, Miranda V. Arizona, Testifying Against Oneself, Decision On Harris