Miranda v. Arizona

The landmark case of Miranda v. Arizona was decided in 1966 under the Warren Court, a Court known for expanding the rights of accused people.

In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested by the Phoenix police on charges of kidnapping and rape. He was questioned for hours, and signed a confession. He was later convicted, mainly because of his confession. Miranda appealed, claiming that his confession should not hold at trial because it was coerced. He also said that because the police had never advised him of his rights, they had taken advantage of him by violating his 5th amendment right to avoid self-incrimination and his 6th amendment right to an attorney.

The Supreme Court agreed with Miranda in a 5-4 decision. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote that when suspects are interrogated by the police, the situation is "inherently intimidating", making any statement taken from the defendant invalid because it cannot truly be the product of his free choice. The Court directed police to inform suspects of his or her rights at the time of arrest, which are now called Miranda warnings. The court decided that the rights of the accused need to be protected to ensure that innocent people are not thrown in jail. It also ensured that authorities could not harass people for political reasons, which was common during the 50s and 60s.

The decision, although highly controversial, tried to balance the rights of the accused and public safety. The Court believed that although some criminals might walk free because of this decision, it would overall be for the greater good and protect the innocent more than help the guilty.


by Jeannette