MIRANDA V.

ARIZONA
Facts.
The Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court) consolidated four separate
cases with issues regarding the admissibility of evidence obtained during police
interrogations.
The first Defendant, Ernesto Miranda (Mr. Miranda), was arrested for kidnapping and
rape. Mr. Miranda was an immigrant, and although the officers did not notify Mr. Miranda of
his rights, he signed a confession after two hours of investigation. The signed statement
included a statement that Mr. Miranda was aware of his rights.
The second Defendant, Michael Vignera (Mr. Vignera), was arrested for robbery. Mr.
Vignera orally admitted to the robbery to the first officer after the arrest, and he was held
in detention for eight hours before he made an admission to an assistant district attorney.
There was no evidence that he was notified of his Fifth Amendment constitutional rights.
The third Defendant, Carl Calvin Westover (Mr. Westover), was arrested for two
robberies. Mr. Westover was questioned over fourteen hours by local police, and then was
handed to Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents, who were able to get signed
confessions from Mr. Westover. The authorities did not notify Mr. Westover of his Fifth
Amendment constitutional rights.
The fourth Defendant, Roy Allen Stewart (Mr. Stewart), was arrested, along with
members of his family (although there was no evidence of any wrongdoing by his family)
for a series of purse snatches. There was no evidence that Mr. Stewart was notified of his
rights. After nine interrogations, Mr. Stewart admitted to the crimes.
Issue. Whether the government is required to notify the arrested defendants of their Fifth
Amendment constitutional rights against self-incrimination before they interrogate the
defendants?
Held.
The government needs to notify arrested individuals of their Fifth Amendment
constitutional rights, specifically: their right to remain silent; an explanation that anything
they say could be used against them in court; their right to counsel; and their right to have
counsel appointed to represent them if necessary. Without this notification, anything
admitted by an arrestee in an interrogation will not be admissible in court.
Dissent.
Justice Tom Clark (J. Clark) argued that the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution would apply to interrogations. There is not
enough evidence to demonstrate a need to apply a new rule as the majority finds here.
The second dissent written by Justice John Harlan (J. Harlan) also argues that the Due
Process Clauses should apply. J. Harlan further argues that the Fifth Amendment rule
against self-incrimination was never intended to forbid any and all pressures against selfincrimination.
Justice Byron White (J. White) argued that there is no historical support for broadening
the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution to include the rights that the majority extends in
their decision. The majority is making new law with their holding.
Discussion.

The majority notes that once an individual chooses to remain silent or asks to first see an
attorney, any interrogation should cease. Further, the individual has the right to stop the
interrogation at any time, and the government will not be allowed to argue for an
exception to the notification rule.