Miranda Rule

Miranda v. Arizona

Miranda v. Arizona, U.S. Supreme Court case (1966) in the area of due process of law (see Fourteenth Amendment). The decision reversed an Arizona court's conviction of Ernesto Miranda on kidnapping and rape charges. Identified in a police lineup, Miranda had been questioned, had confessed, and had signed a written statement without being told that he had a right to a lawyer; his confession was used at trial. In overturning Miranda's conviction, Chief Justice Earl Warren held that the prosecution may not use statements made by a person in police custody unless certain minimum procedural safeguards were in place. Before questioning, a person must be given what is now known as a "Miranda warning" : that you have the right to remain silent; that anything you say may be used as evidence against you; that you may request the presence of an attorney, either retained by you or appointed by the court; and that you have the right, even after beginning to answer questions, to stop answering or request an attorney. The Miranda decision was one of the most controversial of the Warren Court. Under Chief Justices Warren Burger and William Rehnquist (who as a legal spokesman for the Nixon administration had proposed that Miranda be overturned), a Supreme Court more friendly to police operations limited its scope several times, although failing to reverse its central holding, and in 2000 the Rehnquist court, in an opinion authored by the chief justice, reaffirmed the original decision as a constitutional rule that may not be overturned by an act of Congress. Under a 2010 Supreme Court ruling, when a person has invoked Miranda rights, law-enforcement officials may attempt to resume questioning without a lawyer present 14 days after that person has been released from custody. Civil liberties groups have continued to protest that police routinely omit Miranda warnings.

The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Copyright© 2018, The Columbia University Press.

Miranda Rule: Selected full-text books and articles

Miranda Law: The Right to Remain Silent By Ron Fridell Marshall Cavendish Benchmark, 2006
The Miranda Warning By Schauer, Frederick Washington Law Review, Vol. 88, No. 1, March 2013
Regression to the Mean: How Miranda Has Become a Tragicomical Farce By Garcia, Alfredo St. Thomas Law Review, Vol. 25, No. 3, Summer 2013
Is the Miranda Caselaw Really Inconsistent? A Proposed Fifth Amendment Synthesis By Dripps, Donald Constitutional Commentary, Vol. 17, No. 1, Spring 2000
Miranda's Exceptions in a Post-Dickerson World By Klein, Susan R Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 91, No. 3, Spring 2001
Are Police Free to Disregard Miranda? By Clymer, Steven D The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 112, No. 3, December 2002
Protecting the Innocent from False Confessions and Lost Confessions - and from Miranda By Cassell, Paul G Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 88, No. 2, Winter 1998
Over-Reaction - the Mischief of Miranda V. Arizona By Inbau, Fred E Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 89, No. 4, Summer 1999
Looking for a topic idea? Use Questia's Topic Generator
Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed


An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.