MIRANDA V. ARIZONA, 384 U.

S 436 (1966)
Facts:
In the case of Miranda v. Arizona, Ernesto Miranda, 23, was arrested for kidnapping and sexual assault in
Phoenix, Arizona on March 13, 1963 who was identified by the complaining witness. The police took him
to Interrogation Room No. 2 of the detective bureau. He was questioned by two police officers. After two
hours of interrogation, the officers went out of the room with a written confession which was signed by
Miranda. At the top of the statement was a typed paragraph stating that the confession was made
voluntarily, without threats or promises of immunity and with full knowledge of my legal rights,
understanding any statement I make may be used against me.
Procedure:
At the trial, the officers admitted that Miranda was not advised that he had a right to have an attorney
present. At his trial before jury, the written confession was admitted into evidence over the objection of the
defense counsel and the officers testified to the prior oral confession made by the defendant during the
interrogation. Miranda was found guilty, convicted and sentenced to 20 30 years of imprisonment. On
appeal, Supreme Court of Arizona held that Mirandas constitutional rights were not violated in obtaining
the confession and affirmed the said decision.
Issue:
Is the confession obtained from Miranda during the custodial investigation admissible as evidence?
Decision:
The Court voted to overturn Mirandas conviction. Chief Justice Warren declared that the burden is upon
the State to demonstrate that procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against selfincrimination are followed.
Reasoning:
The case was against the fundamental fairness standards which the Court established. According to
Chief Justice Warren, it is clear that Miranda was not in any way apprised of his right to consult with an
attorney and to have one present during the interrogation, nor was his right not to be compelled to
incriminate himself affectively protected in any other manner. Without these warnings, statements were
inadmissible. The mere fact that he signed a statement which contained a typed-in clause stating that he
had full knowledge of his legal rights does not approach the knowing and intelligent waiver required to
relinquish constitutional rights.
Chief Justice Warren the spelled out the rights of the accused and the responsibilities of the police. Police
must warn a suspect prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says
can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if
he cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.
Rule of the case:
Accused Ernesto Miranda, retracting his confession, was tried again by the State of Arizona, found guilty
and sent to prison for 20 to 30 years. The said retrial, based on prisoners successful appeal, did not
constitute double jeopardy.