The Supreme Court Case Of Miranda V. Arizona

The Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona in 1966 affected the rights of the accused and the responsibilities of law enforcement. Miranda v. Arizona is known as the “right to remain silent” case. “I must tell you first you have the right to remain silent. If you choose not to remain silent, anything you say or write can and will be used as evidence against you in court. You have the right to consult a lawyer before any questioning, and you have the right to have the lawyer present with you during any questioning. You not only have the right to consult with a lawyer before any questioning, but if you lack the financial ability to retain a lawyer, a lawyer will be appointed to represent you before any questioning, and to be present with you during any questioning.” The court established new guidelines to ensure that the individual is accorded to his privilege under the Fifth Amendment not to be compelled to incriminate himself. Before the case, it was unclear what rights criminal suspects had when taken down to the police station, so the police did little to clarify the situation, which means they acted as if they had no rights and the police questioned suspects as if they as police are entitled to an answer. John Flynn argued the cause for Miranda while Gary K. Nelson argued the cause for Arizona. Those in favor of Miranda were Warren, Black, Douglas, Brennan, and Fortas while those in favor of Arizona were Clark, Harlan, Stewart, and White. “Now the issue before the Court is the admission in evidence of the defendant’s confession under the facts and circumstances of this case over the specific objections of this trial counsel that it had been given in the absence of counsel,” said John J. Flynn, who argued for Miranda. “I believe...

... middle of paper ...

... her rights given by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments before a trial. The Miranda Rights changed the way law enforcement conduct interrogations and gaining confessions. In taking the case, the Supreme Court had to determine the role police have in protecting the rights of the accused guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendment. The legal issue brought up was whether law enforcement officials must inform an accused of his constitutional rights as a responsibility.

The court case decision revolutionized criminal procedure by holding the rights of the accused guaranteed in the Bill of Rights apply in States, no less than in federal courts, which drew criticism from state courts. The Miranda v. Arizona decision was the Supreme Court’s attempt to balance the rights of a person accused of a crime with the rights of society to prosecute those who commit criminal acts.