Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 1966, dealt with the admissibility of statements made during "custodial interrogation" under the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel (Miranda pp). According to Miranda, prior to interrogation, a person in custody must be told of the right to remain silent and the likelihood that statements made by the individual will be used against him or her in a court of law (Miranda pp). Moreover, recognizing that the average citizen might not understand which statements are incriminating or how they might be used in court, the Supreme Court requires individuals in custody to be told of their right to an attorney (Miranda pp). The Court recognized an obvious connection between the two amendments, in that statements made without counsel tended to self-incriminate, which is protected by the Fifth Amendment, and the right to counsel, which is protected by the Sixth Amendment, was not particularly helpful once the incriminating statements had been made (Miranda pp).

Ernesto Miranda, a poor Mexican immigrant living in Phoenix, Arizona in 1963, was arrested after being identified in a police lineup and charged with rape and kidnapping (Miranda pp). While in custody, the police interrogated him for two hours, however they did not inform him of his Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment rights (Miranda pp). During interrogation, Miranda confessed in writing to the crimes and the written statement also included an acknowledgement that he was aware of his right against self-incrimination (Miranda pp). The prosecution used this confession during trial to obtain a conviction, and Miranda was sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison on each count (Miranda pp). His attorney appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court on the grounds that Miranda had not been informed of his rights, nor had an attorney present during interrogation (Miranda pp). The police admitted that they had not given him any explanation of his rights, arguing that because he had been convicted of a crime in the past, he must have been aware of them (Miranda pp). The Arizona Supreme Court denied the appeal and upheld his conviction (Miranda pp). In 1965, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear Miranda's case (Miranda pp).

The U.S. Supreme Court held that the prosecution may not use statements without the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination (Summary pp). The decision reads, "the person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him" (Summary pp). If the individual indicates that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease, until an attorney is present, and if an interrogation is conducted without the presence of an attorney, the burden rests on the Government to show that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel (Summary pp).