Miranda. v. AZ 1966
Background: The Case was a series of joint rulings all concerning defendants who were questioned in custody an deprived of significant rights to their freedom. In Vignera v. New York the defendant was questioned by police, made oral confessions, and signed a inculpatory statement without being notified of his right to counsel. In Westover v. United States another was arrested by the FBI, interrogated, and made to sign a statement without being notified of the same right. Finally, in California v. Stewart, local police held and interrogated the defendant for five days without notification of this right.
Issue: Does the police practice of interrogating individuals without informing them of their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment?
Ruling/Impact: The Court ruled that prosecutors could not use statements stemming from custodial interrogation of defendants unless they were notified of their rights protecting them from self incrimination. With their ruling the court specifically outlined the necessary police warnings to suspects, including warnings of the right to remain silent and the right to have counsel present during interrogations.
Issue: Does the police practice of interrogating individuals without informing them of their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment?
Ruling/Impact: The Court ruled that prosecutors could not use statements stemming from custodial interrogation of defendants unless they were notified of their rights protecting them from self incrimination. With their ruling the court specifically outlined the necessary police warnings to suspects, including warnings of the right to remain silent and the right to have counsel present during interrogations.