Case Name: Miranda v. Arizona

Facts of the Case: Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix, Arizona, for the kidnapping and rape of an 18-year-old woman. He was taken to the police station and interrogated by two police officers. During the interrogation, the police officers did not read Miranda his rights, which include the right to remain silent and the right to have an attorney present. Miranda confessed to the crime.

History of the Case: Miranda was charged with kidnapping and rape. He was convicted at trial and sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison. Miranda appealed his conviction, arguing that his confession was involuntary because he had not been read his rights. The Arizona Supreme Court upheld his conviction.

Issues or the Facts of the Case and Legal Questions the Court Must Decide: The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision. The Court had to decide whether the police violated Miranda’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination by interrogating him without first reading him his rights.

Court’s Decision or Holdings: The Supreme Court ruled in Miranda’s favor. The Court held that the police must read suspects their rights before interrogating them. The Court reasoned that the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is a fundamental right that must be protected. The Court also held that the right to have an attorney present during interrogation is necessary to ensure that suspects are able to exercise their right to remain silent.

Concurring and Dissenting Opinions: There were three concurring opinions in Miranda. Justices John Marshall Harlan and William J. Brennan, Jr., agreed with the majority’s decision but argued that the right to have an attorney present should be absolute, even in cases where the suspect does not request an attorney. Justice Byron White agreed with the majority’s decision but argued that the right to have an attorney present should be a rebuttable presumption, meaning that the police could interrogate a suspect without an attorney present if the suspect waived their right to an attorney.

The only dissenting opinion was written by Justice Potter Stewart. Justice Stewart argued that the majority’s decision was too broad and would make it difficult for the police to investigate crimes.

Significance of the Case: The Miranda decision is one of the most important Supreme Court decisions in American history. It has had a profound impact on the criminal justice system, and it has helped to protect the rights of suspects. The Miranda decision has been cited in thousands of cases, and it has been used to overturn countless convictions.

The Miranda decision is a reminder that the courts play an important role in protecting our rights as citizens. The courts can ensure that our rights are not violated by the government, and they can help to ensure that we are treated fairly under the law.