Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

In 1963, a man named Ernesto Miranda was arrested and charged of kidnapping and rape. The police interrogated Miranda and eventually had him sign a confession, which was later used in his trial as evidence. Ernesto Miranda was found guilty, but he appealed his case on the basis that he did not know about his constitutional rights: a right against testifying against oneself (self-incrimination), and a right to an attorney during police questioning. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reviewed the case.

According to the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, a suspect does not have to “be a witness against himself”. This means that, during questioning, one does not have to reveal any evidence that may be used against them. Those being questioned by police may also have an attorney present to guide and prevent them from falling into any legal traps.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ernesto Miranda. They agreed that his constitutional rights had been violated, and the confession could not legally be used in his trial. The case of Miranda v. Arizona also required police to inform suspects of their legal rights at the time of their arrest. Variations exist, but they are traditionally as follows,

“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights?.”

The Supreme Court of this era set the notion that those under arrest need to be informed of their constitutional rights. Miranda v. Arizona gave more rights to the individual during the 1960's with other landmark Supreme Court cases.