Web Results

www.uscourts.gov/.../facts-and-case-summary-miranda-v-arizona

Facts The Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona addressed four different cases involving custodial interrogations. In each of these cases, the defendant was questioned by police officers, detectives, or a prosecuting attorney in a room in which he was cut off from the outside world. In none of these cases was the defendant given a full and effective warning of his rights at the ...

caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/384/436.html

In two of the three cases coming from state courts, Miranda v. Arizona (No. 759) and Vignera v. New York (No. 760), the confessions were held admissible and no other errors worth comment are alleged by petitioners. [384 U.S. 436, 525] I would affirm in these two cases. The other state case is California v.

www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/384/436

Miranda v. Arizona serves best, being neither the hardest nor easiest of the four under the Court's standards. [n15] On March 3, 1963, an 18-year-old girl was kidnapped and forcibly raped near Phoenix, Arizona. Ten days later, on the morning of March 13, petitioner Miranda was arrested and taken to the police station.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prevents prosecutors from using a person's statements made in response to interrogation in police custody as evidence at their trial unless they can show that the person was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before...

www.infoplease.com/.../history/north-america/court-cases/miranda-v-arizona

Miranda v. Arizona, U.S. Supreme Court case (1966) in the area of due process of law (see Fourteenth Amendment ).The decision reversed an Arizona court's conviction of Ernesto Miranda on kidnapping and rape charges. Identified in a police lineup, Miranda had been questioned, had confessed, and had signed a written statement without being told that he had a right to a lawyer; his confession was...

landmarkcases.c-span.org/Case/11/Miranda-v-Arizona

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) gave rise to the “Miranda warning” now issued upon arrest after the Court ruled 5-4 that suspects must be informed of their rights before they are questioned. These rights include the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment right to an attorney.

cases.laws.com/miranda-arizona

What is Miranda v. Arizona (1966)? Miranda v. Arizona was a court case that took place in the State of Arizona in which Ernesto Miranda, a 22 year old male, was accused of raping an 18 year old female in 1963.

www.britannica.com/event/Miranda-v-Arizona

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), U.S. Supreme Court case that resulted in a ruling that specified a code of conduct for police interrogations of criminal suspects held in custody. Chief Justice Earl Warren, writing for the 5–4 majority of the justices, ruled that the prosecution may not use

www.thoughtco.com/miranda-v-arizona-104966

Miranda v. Arizona was a significant Supreme Court case that ruled that a defendant's statements to authorities are inadmissible in court unless the defendant has been informed of their right to have an attorney present during questioning and an understanding that anything they say will be held against them.In addition, for a statement to be admissible, the individual must understand their ...

legaldictionary.net/miranda-v-arizona

Case Summary of Miranda v. Arizona: Miranda was taken into custody by police for purposes of interrogation, where he later confessed. Miranda was not informed of his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent or right to have counsel present.