[117] MIRANDA V ARIZONA1
384 US 436 | 1966 | Warren, C.J.
SUMMARY: This is a consolidation of 4 cases, where in each case, the defendant was
questioned without being informed of their rights as provided for in the Fifth
Amendment.
PROVISIONS APPLICABLE:
● Fifth Amendment: ”No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or
otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand
jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when
in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be
subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor
shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor
be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall
private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
DOCTRINE: The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or
inculpatory, stemming from questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a
person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in
any significant way, unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards
effective to secure the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination.
FACTS:
● This case is a consolidation of 4 cases, all of which concerns the
admissibility of statements obtained from a defendant questioned while in
custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant
way.
○ In each case, the defendant was questioned by police officers,
detectives, or a prosecuting attorney in a room in which he was cut
off from the outside world.
○ They all thus share salient features -- incommunicado interrogation
of individuals in a police-dominated atmosphere, resulting in self-
1
Original Digest by Ate Kae, 1st Semester CrimPro.
incriminating statements without full warnings of constitutional
rights.
● Miranda v. Arizona
○ Mr. Miranda was an immigrant, and although the officers did not
notify Mr. Miranda of his rights, he signed a confession.
○ Miranda was arrested in his house and brought to the police station
where he was questioned by police officers in connection with
kidnapping and rape. He was also identified by the complaining
witness.
○ After 2 hours of interrogation, the police obtained a written
confession from 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."
○ The written confession was admitted into evidence at trial despite
the objection of the defense attorney and the fact that the police
officers admitted that they had not advised Miranda of his right to
have an attorney present during the interrogation.
○ The jury found Miranda guilty.
○ On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona affirmed and held that
Miranda’s constitutional rights were not violated because he did not
specifically request counsel
● Vignera v. New York
○ Vignera was arrested for robbery.
○ He orally admitted to the robbery to detective in the 66th Detective
Squad. He was then arrested.
○ At 3PM, the police transported him to the 70th Precinct in Brooklyn,
"for detention." At 11 p.m., Vignera was questioned by an assistant
district attorney in the presence of a hearing reporter, who
transcribed the questions and Vignera's answers.This verbatim
account of these proceedings contains no statement of any
warnings given by the assistant district attorney.
○ During trial, the detective from the 66th was asked whether Vignera
was warned of his right to counsel before being interrogated. The
 prosecution objected to the question, and the trial judge sustained
the objection.
■ There was no evidence that he was notified of his 5 th
Amendment Constitutional rights
○ He was found guilty of robbery. The conviction was affirmed
without opinion by the CA.
● Westover v. US
○ Westover, was arrested by local police in Kansas City as a suspect
in two Kansas City robberies. An FBI report also stated that he is
wanted on a felony charge in California. The local authorities took
him to a police station and placed him in a line-up on the local
charges.
○ Kansas City police interrogated Westover on the night of his arrest,
where he denied the charges. The next morning, he was
interrogated again by the Kansas police, and in the afternoon, by
FBI agents. After two or two and one-half hours, Westover signed
separate confessions to each of these two robberies which had
been prepared by one of the agents during the interrogation.
○ At trial, one agent testified that Westover was informed of his
rights. Westover was tried by a jury and was convicted of the
robberies.
● California v. Stewart
○ Stewart was arrested along with members of his family for a series
of purse snatches.
○ He was taken to the University Station of the Los Angeles Police
Department, where he was placed in a cell. During the next five
days, police interrogated Stewart on nine different occasions.
■ Except during the first interrogation session, when he was
confronted with an accusing witness, Stewart was isolated
with his interrogators.
○ During the ninth interrogation session, Stewart admitted that he had
robbed the deceased.
○ None of the records indicated that Stewart was ever advised of his
rights. Stewart was charged with kidnapping to commit robbery,
rape, and murder. At his trial, transcripts of the first interrogation
and the confession at the last interrogation were introduced in
evidence. The jury found Stewart guilty.
○ Supreme Court of California reversed. It held that Stewart should
have been advised of his right to remain silent and of his right to
counsel, and that it would not presume in the face of a silent record
that the police advised Stewart of his rights.
ISSUES w/ HOLDING & RATIO:
[1] Whether “statements obtained from an individual who is subjected to custodial
police interrogation” are admissible against him in a criminal trial — NO
● The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or
inculpatory, stemming from questioning initiated by law enforcement
officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of
his freedom of action in any significant way, unless it demonstrates the use
of procedural safeguards effective to secure the Fifth Amendment's privilege
against self-incrimination.
○ Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has:
■ a right to remain silent,
■ that any statement he does make may be used as
evidence against him, and
■ that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either
retained or appointed.
○ The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the
waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently.
○ If, however, he indicates in any manner and at any stage of the
process that he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking,
there can be no questioning.
○ Likewise, if the individual is alone and indicates in any manner that
he does not wish to be interrogated, the police may not question
him.
■ The mere fact that he may have answered some questions
or volunteered some statements on his own does not
deprive him of the right to refrain from answering any
further inquiries until he has consulted with an attorney
and thereafter consents to be questioned.
● The privilege against self-incrimination guarantees to the individual the "right
to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of his
 own will," during a period of custodial interrogation as well as in the courts RULING: The judgments of the Supreme Court of Arizona, of the New York Court of
or during the course of other official investigations. Appeals, and of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, are reversed. The judgment
● In these cases, none of the officers undertake to afford appropriate of the Supreme Court of California is affirmed.
safeguards at the outset of the interrogation to insure that the statements
were truly the product of free choice. DISSENT: Clark, J.
● Thus, Court rules in each case as follows: ● The majority’s opinion created an unnecessarily strict interpretation of the
○ Miranda v. Arizona is REVERSED. It is clear that Miranda was not in Fifth Amendment that curtails the ability of the police to effectively execute
any way apprised of his right to consult with an attorney and to their duties
have one present during the interrogation, nor was his right not to ● The state should have the burden to prove that the suspect was aware of his
be compelled to incriminate himself effectively protected in any rights during the interrogation, but that statements resulting from
other manner. Without these warnings, the statements were interrogation should not be automatically excluded if the suspect was not
inadmissible. His signing of the statement does not constitute an explicitly informed of his rights
intelligent waiver.
DISSENT: Harlan, J.
○ Vignera v. New York is REVERSED. Vignera was not warned of any
● The judicial precedent and legislative history surrounding the Fifth
of his rights before the questioning by the detective and by the
Amendment does not support the view that the Fifth Amendment prohibits
assistant district attorney. No other steps were taken to protect
all pressure on the suspect
these rights. Thus, his statements are inadmissible.
● There was no legal precedent to support the requirement to specifically
○ Westover v. US is REVERSED. The Court cannot find that Westover
inform suspects of their rights
knowingly and intelligently waived his right to remain silent and his
right to consult with counsel prior to the time he made the
DISSENT: White, J.
statement. ● The Fifth Amendment only protects defendants from giving self-
○ California v. Stewart is AFFIRMED. In dealing with custodial incriminating testimony if explicitly compelled to do so
interrogation, the Court will not presume that a defendant has been ● Custodial interrogation was not inherently coercive and did not require such
effectively apprised of his rights and that his privilege against self- a broad interpretation of the protections of the Fifth Amendment
incrimination has been adequately safeguarded on a record that ● Such an interpretation harms the criminal process by destroying the
does not show that any warnings have been given or that any credibility of confessions
effective alternative has been employed. Nor can a knowing and
intelligent waiver of these rights be assumed on a silent record.
● The Court clarified that this holding is not an innovation in our jurisprudence,
but is an application of principles long recognized and applied in other
settings. This is a reaffirmation of the Escobedo decision, which is an
explication of basic rights that are enshrined in our Constitution -- that "No
person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against
himself," and that "the accused shall . . . have the Assistance of Counsel" --
rights which were put in jeopardy in that case through official overbearing.