less than 1 minute read

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

Law Library - American Law and Legal InformationNotable Trials and Court Cases - 1989 to 1994