Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
Background Summary and Questions

Vocabulary


immigrant (to immigrate)

Define:



Use in a sentence:



accused (to accuse)

Define:



Use in a sentence:




confession

Define:



Use in a sentence:



appealed (to appeal)

Define:



Use in a sentence:



interrogation (to interrogate)

Define:



Use in a sentence:




Ernesto Miranda was a poor Mexican immigrant who lived in Arizona in 1963. A woman accused Miranda of committing a crime against her. The police arrested Miranda and asked him questions about the crime for two hours.

In the United States, people who are accused of crimes have certain rights granted by the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution says that they have the right to be silent. The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution says that they have the right to have a lawyer to help defend themselves.

The police did not tell Miranda that he had these rights when they arrested him. After the police were finished asking Miranda questions, he signed a confession. The police used his confession in the trial and Miranda was convicted of the crime. The judge decided he should serve 20 to 30 years in prison for each crime.

Miranda appealed his case to the highest court in Arizona, called the Supreme Court of Arizona. His attorney argued that his confession should not have been used as evidence in his trial because Miranda had not been informed of his rights, and no attorney had been present to assist him during his interrogation. The Arizona Supreme Court denied his appeal and upheld Miranda's conviction.

The Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear Miranda's case. The decision in Miranda v. Arizona was handed down in 1966.


Questions to Consider:
  1. What rights of the accused does the Fifth Amendment protect? The Sixth Amendment?
     
  2. If the police had informed Ernesto Miranda of these rights, do you think he would have done anything differently?
     
  3. This case involves balancing the rights of the accused against society's need to to fight crime. Could informing accused persons of their rights hurt the ability of the police to fight crime? Why or why not?
     
  4. Do you think that informing people of their rights when they are accused of crimes helps protect innocent citizens? Why or why not?
Resources
About landmarkcases.org
 
Teaching Recommendations
Based on Your Time

 
Background Summary
and Questions

• • •
Reading Level
• •
Reading Level
 •
Reading Level
 
Diagram of How the Case Moved Through the Court System
 
Listen to the Oral Arguments
 
Key Excerpts from the Majority Opinion
 
Key Excerpts from the Dissenting Opinion
 
Full Text of the Majority Opinion

back to top

Activities
    The Case
Miranda v. Arizona: A Primer
 
Miranda Warnings and the Bill of Rights
 
Miranda and the Exclusionary Rule
 
Controversy Over the Court's Decision
 
Should the Miranda Warnings Be Required Police Procedure?

back to top

    After the Case
Beyond Miranda
 
A Real World Case Study: Homicide by David Simon
 
Miranda Rights for Juveniles: Yarborough v. Alvarado
 

back to top

Back to top


  FindLaw  
 

LEGAL WEB AND DATABASE SEARCH