In this case, the Supreme Court was asked to decide if the age of a juvenile being questioned by police should be taken into consideration when deciding if he or she is in police custody and, therefore, …

Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that law enforcement must warn a person of their constitutional rights before interrogating them …

On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona held that Miranda's constitutional rights were not violated in obtaining the confession, and affirmed the conviction. 98 Ariz. 18, 401 P.2d 721.

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed, deciding that the police had not taken proper steps to inform Miranda of his constitutional rights.

Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered the opinion of the 5-4 majority, concluding that defendant’s interrogation violated the Fifth Amendment. To protect the privilege, the Court reasoned, procedural …

Dec 12, 2025 · Arizona reversed an Arizona court’s conviction of Ernesto Miranda on charges of kidnapping and rape.

In a 5-4 Supreme Court decision Miranda v. Arizona (1966) ruled that an arrested individual is entitled to rights against self-incrimination and to an attorney under the 5th and 6th Amendments of the United …

Miranda’s oral and written confessions are now held inadmissible under the Court’s new rules. One is entitled to feel astonished that the Constitution can be read to produce this result.

Apr 5, 2025 · On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona held that Miranda’s constitutional rights were not violated in obtaining the confession, and affirmed the conviction. In reaching its decision, the court …

Oct 6, 2025 · In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Miranda, establishing that the prosecution could not use statements from custodial interrogation unless procedural safeguards …