211,424 views
40 votes
40 votes
Miranda v arizona case brief

User Leana
by
2.4k points

2 Answers

26 votes
26 votes

Final answer:

The Miranda v. Arizona case established that suspects must be informed of their rights, including the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney, during police interrogation. Failure to inform the suspect of their rights can lead to the exclusion of any statements they provide.

Step-by-step explanation:

In the case of Miranda v. Arizona, Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and confessed to the crime during police interrogation. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Miranda's confession was inadmissible because the police failed to inform him of his Fifth Amendment right not to self-incriminate.

Thus, Miranda v. Arizona (1966) is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case. It established the Miranda rights, ensuring suspects are informed of their right to remain silent and have an attorney present during police interrogation. The Court held that suspects must be informed of their rights, including the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney, in order for any statements they provide to be considered voluntary.

User Deep Verma
by
3.4k points
9 votes
9 votes
Was about how an arrested individual is entitled to rights against self discrimination and to an attorney under the 5th and 6th amendments
User Charan Tej
by
2.8k points