Diagram of How the Case Moved Through the Court System

Supreme Court of the United States Reversed the Arizona Supreme Court and held that statements obtained from defendants during interrogations in police-dominated atmosphere without full warning of right to remain silent and right to counsel violated the Fifth and Sixth Amendments and were inadmissible. Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
Supreme Court of Arizona Affirmed the conviction and held that Miranda's constitutional rights were not violated in obtaining the confession and admitting it at trial. State v. Miranda (1965)
Superior Court, Maricopa County Conviction was entered against Miranda for kidnapping and rape on the basis of a written confession that was admitted into evidence despite defense objections that Miranda had not been informed of his right to an attorney and his right to remain silent during the police interrogation. State v. Miranda (1965)
Miranda appeals his conviction. His lawyer argues that his confession should not have been used against him because he was not advised of his right to remain silent and to have the assistance of an attorney before he was questioned. The Appeals Court rules against Miranda.
Supreme Court for the State of Arizona (1963) Miranda, a poor immigrant from Mexico, is convicted of rape and kidnapping. During the trial, his written confession, obtained during a two-hour interrogation, is used against him. The police admit that they did not inform Miranda of his rights. State of Arizona v. Miranda

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