This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Miranda v Arizona [1966] 384 US 436

By Oxbridge Law TeamUpdated 21/04/2024 20:20

Judgement for the case Miranda v Arizona


  • Self-incrimination refers to the act of implicating oneself in a crime or wrongdoing.

    • It is a fundamental legal principle that individuals cannot be compelled to testify against themselves, protecting them from being forced to provide evidence that could lead to their prosecution.

    • The right to remain silent is a component of rights, ensuring that individuals can refrain from answering questions posed by law enforcement or other authorities.

    • This right safeguards individuals from inadvertently providing self-incriminating statements and is integral to protecting their legal rights.

  • Custodial interrogation involves questioning by law enforcement while the individual is in custody or significantly deprived of their freedom. It is subject to strict legal guidelines, including informing individuals of their rights before interrogation begins to protect against coerced confessions.

  • Coercion involves the use of force, threats, or other forms of pressure to compel someone to act against their will. In criminal law, coercion can lead to involuntary confessions or admissions of guilt, which are inadmissible in court due to violating the individual's rights.

  • Robbery is a criminal offense involving the unlawful taking of property from another person or entity through force or intimidation.

    • It is distinguished from theft by the use or threat of violence, which escalates the severity of the crime and often carries harsher penalties.


  • The United States Supreme Court took action in a series of cases, reversing the judgment in three instances and affirming the fourth.

    • These decisions stemmed from situations where individuals were taken into custody and subjected to questioning, leading to a potential violation of their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

  • To safeguard this constitutional right, the Court established procedural safeguards.

    • The Court ruled that Defendants must be informed of their rights before questioning, including the right to remain silent and the potential use of their statements against them in court.

    • Defendants must be notified of their right to have an attorney present, with the option for appointed counsel if they cannot afford one.

    • Following these warnings, defendants can waive their rights and participate in questioning, provided they do so knowingly and intelligently.

    • Evidence obtained through interrogation cannot be used against a defendant at trial unless the prosecution can demonstrate that the required warnings were given and that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived their rights.

  • Importantly, the Court emphasized that for a waiver to be effective, the accused must have been offered counsel and then knowingly and understandingly rejected that offer.

    • Simply presuming waiver from a silent record was deemed impermissible by the Court.

  • These rulings aimed to uphold the integrity of the legal process and protect individuals' rights during custodial interrogation.


  • In this case, the Court held that statements obtained through custodial interrogation of the defendant could not be used by the prosecution unless procedural safeguards securing the privilege against self-incrimination were demonstrated. 

  • Custodial interrogation was defined as questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person had been taken into custody or significantly deprived of their freedom.

    • The procedural safeguards included informing the person of their right to remain silent, the potential use of their statements as evidence, and their right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. 

  • The Defendant could waive these rights, but the waiver had to be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent.

    • If the Defendant indicated a desire to consult with an attorney before speaking, or if they indicated a desire not to be interrogated, questioning had to cease.

    • The defendant retained the right to refrain from answering further inquiries until consulting with an attorney and thereafter consenting to be questioned.


  • This case highlights legal principles such as self-incrimination, the right to remain silent, and custodial interrogation, emphasizing their protection under the Fifth Amendment. 

  • It explains the Supreme Court's role in establishing procedural safeguards to uphold these rights and ensure the fair treatment of defendants. 

  • It underscores the importance of protecting individuals' rights during custodial interrogation to maintain the integrity of the legal process.

Any comments or edits about this case? Get in touch

For Further Study on Miranda v Arizona

Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.

Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️

Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.

Get Started

Similar Cases

    Related Product Samples

    These product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.

    Claim every advantage to get a first in law
    Criminal Procedure and Evidence Notes
    325 total pages
    192 purchased

    A collection of the best Criminal Procedure and Evidence notes the dire...