1. IDENTIFICATION: Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694, 1966 U.S.
2. FACTS: Miranda was arrested and taken to the police station where officers questioned him for two hours. Miranda signed a confession. The confession stated that it was made voluntarily and that Miranda had full knowledge of his legal rights. Miranda’s confession was used against him at trial and over Miranda’s objection. Miranda was convicted of rape and kidnapping. The state supreme court affirmed the conviction. Miranda appealed.
3. ISSUE: Whether the government is required to notify any arrested defendants of their Fifth Amendment constitutional rights against self-incrimination before they question the defendants?
4. REASONING: When a person is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom, warnings must be given: he has the right to remain silent; that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law; that he has the right to have an attorney present; and if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him. The Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination is jeopardized when a person is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom. Once these warnings have been given, a person may intentionally and intelligently waive his rights and agree to answer questions or make a statement. No evidence obtained as a result of interrogation can be used against a person unless the prosecution has shown that the person had been informed of his rights. If a person shows a desire to remain silent or have an attorney present at any time during questioning, the interrogation must stop until an attorney is present.
5. ACTION: By a vote of 5-4, the Court held that both inculpatory and exculpatory statements made in response to interrogation by a defendant in police custody will be admissible at trial only if the prosecution can show that the defendant was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before and...