In this case, the Supreme Court was asked to decide if the age of a juvenile being questioned by police should be taken into consideration when deciding if he or she is in police custody and, therefore, …

Because of the defendant's low I.Q. and poor English-language skills, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that it was a "clear error" when the district court found that Garibay had "knowingly and intelligently …

In a 5-4 Supreme Court decision Miranda v. Arizona (1966) ruled that an arrested individual is entitled to rights against self-incrimination and to an attorney under the 5th and 6th Amendments of the United …

Dec 12, 2025 · Arizona reversed an Arizona court’s conviction of Ernesto Miranda on charges of kidnapping and rape.

Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered the opinion of the 5-4 majority, concluding that defendant’s interrogation violated the Fifth Amendment. To protect the privilege, the Court reasoned, procedural …

Jul 21, 2025 · In a 5-4 decision on June 13, 1966, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Miranda. Chief Justice Earl Warren, writing for the majority, concluded that the atmosphere of custodial interrogation …

Miranda’s oral and written confessions are now held inadmissible under the Court’s new rules. One is entitled to feel astonished that the Constitution can be read to produce this result.

The Court concluded by noting that it does not intend its outlined procedures to unnecessarily constrict the pursuit of effective law enforcement, but rather that absent changes in law by the states or …

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed, deciding that the police had not taken proper steps to inform Miranda of his constitutional rights.

Dec 13, 2022 · Many people think they are supposed to be "read their rights" in any interaction with police. But that’s not necessarily the case. The Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona …