less than 1 minute read

Miranda v. Arizona

Significance, Tainted Evidence, Conviction Overturned, Impact, Miranda Rights, Further Readings


Ernesto Miranda


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


Washington, D.C.

Date of Decision

13 June 1966


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).


Biskupic, Joan, and Elder Witt. Congressional Quarterly's Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1997.

Additional topics

Law Library - American Law and Legal InformationNotable Trials and Court Cases - 1963 to 1972