384 U.S. 436 (1966)
In March 1963 Ernesto Miranda was arrested at his home in Phoenix and taken to the police station where he was identified by the complaining witness.1 He was then questioned by two officers in Interrogation Room No.2 2 for two hours.3 The officers did not advise him of any right to counsel.4 Miranda signed a typed confession that was introduced at his trial for kidnapping and rape.5
On October 14 1960 Michael Vignera was arrested in connection with a Brooklyn robbery.6 He was taken first to the 17th Detective Squad headquarters in Manhattan and later to the 66th Detective Squad.7 A detective questioned him for several hours without any advice concerning counsel.8 Vignera made an oral admission.9 He was then questioned by an assistant district attorney whose transcribed statement was also introduced at his trial for first-degree robbery.10
On March 20 1963 Carl Calvin Westover was arrested by Kansas City police as a suspect in two local robberies.1112 Kansas City police interrogated Westover on the night of his arrest.13 The next day local officers interrogated him again throughout the morning.14 Westover was then turned over to FBI agents who questioned him for two to two-and-a-half hours about California robberies and obtained signed confessions.15 At the time the FBI agents began questioning Westover he had been in custody for over fourteen hours.16
On January 31 1963 Roy Allen Stewart was arrested at his home in connection with a series of purse-snatch robberies.17 During the next five days police interrogated Stewart on nine different occasions without any advice of rights.18 On the ninth session Stewart confessed.19 Transcripts of the interrogations were introduced at his trial for kidnapping rape and murder.20
The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed Miranda's conviction.21 The New York courts affirmed Vignera's conviction.22 The Ninth Circuit affirmed Westover's conviction.23 The California Supreme Court reversed Stewart's conviction.24 The Supreme Court granted certiorari in the four cases and consolidated them for argument.25
Whether statements obtained from a defendant during custodial police interrogation are admissible at trial when the defendant was not advised of the right to remain silent or the right to the presence of an attorney?26
The prosecution may not use statements whether exculpatory or inculpatory stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.27 Prior to any questioning the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney either retained or appointed.28
No. In the case of Ernesto Miranda the defendant was arrested at his home and taken to the Phoenix police station where he was identified by the complaining witness.29 He was then questioned by two officers in Interrogation Room No. 2 for two hours without advice of any right to counsel.30 Miranda signed a typed confession that was admitted at his kidnapping and rape trial.31 Similarly Michael Vignera was arrested in connection with a Brooklyn robbery.32
He was taken to the 17th Detective Squad headquarters and later the 66th Detective Squad.33 Vignera was interrogated for several hours without any advice concerning counsel before making an oral admission and a transcribed statement used at his first-degree robbery trial.34 Carl Calvin Westover was arrested by Kansas City police as a suspect in two local robberies. He was interrogated throughout the night and following morning for more than fourteen hours.35
Westover was then turned over to FBI agents who questioned him for two to two-and-a-half hours about California robberies before obtaining signed confessions.36 Roy Allen Stewart was arrested at his home in connection with purse-snatch robberies.37 During the next five days police interrogated Stewart on nine separate occasions without any advice of rights before confessing with transcripts introduced at his trial for kidnapping rape and murder.
Statements obtained without the required warnings are inadmissible at trial.38
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Clark concurred in the result.39 The Escobedo decision was correct and should be followed.40 The rule announced today is a logical extension of that decision.41
Clark would affirm the judgment in Miranda and reverse the others.42 Clark rejected the majority's broad critique of police practices while still supporting reversal in three cases where warnings were absent.43 He emphasized that the Court should not move too quickly without empirical data on the practical effects of the new rules.44
Joined by Justices Stewart And White
Justice Harlan dissented. The thrust of the Court's opinion is that the Constitution requires the police to give suspects detailed warnings before questioning them.45 Harlan maintained that the Constitution does not require such warnings.
He argued that the rule announced today will have a devastating impact on law enforcement.46 Harlan maintained that the Due Process Clause already provided an adequate flexible standard for evaluating confessions.47 He warned that the new per se rules would frustrate ongoing legislative and professional efforts at reform and would impair the ability of police to solve crimes.48
Whether the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination requires that procedural safeguards such as warnings be employed before statements from in-custody interrogation may be used by the prosecution?49
The Fifth Amendment privilege is available outside of criminal court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed from being compelled to incriminate themselves.50 Without proper safeguards the process of in-custody interrogation contains inherently compelling pressures which work to undermine the individual's will to resist.51
Yes.5253 The privilege against self-incrimination applies to custodial interrogation because the atmosphere of in-custody questioning is inherently coercive.54 This is seen in the four cases where defendants were isolated from the outside world and questioned without warnings leading to self-incriminating statements.55 The procedural safeguards of warnings are necessary to overcome these pressures and permit a full opportunity to exercise the privilege.56 The Court reaffirmed principles from Escobedo and applied them to the facts of Miranda Vignera Westover and Stewart.57
The Fifth Amendment requires procedural safeguards such as warnings before statements from custodial interrogation may be used.58
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Stewart dissented. He agreed with much that is said in the dissenting opinions of Justices Harlan and White. Stewart maintained that the Constitution does not require the warnings set forth in the Court's opinion.
He argued that the rule announced today is not compelled by the Constitution.59 Stewart joined Harlan's view that the majority had stretched Fifth Amendment precedent beyond recognition.60 He emphasized that the new rules would seriously handicap effective law enforcement without any corresponding constitutional mandate.61
Whether the prosecution bears the burden of demonstrating that a defendant knowingly and intelligently waived the privilege against self-incrimination and the right to counsel before any statement obtained during custodial interrogation may be admitted?62
If the interrogation continues without the presence of an attorney and a statement is taken a heavy burden rests on the government to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his privilege against self-incrimination and his right to retained or appointed counsel.63 No effective waiver of the right to counsel during interrogation can be recognized unless specifically made after the warnings have been given.64
Yes. In each of the cases the prosecution failed to demonstrate any waiver because no warnings were given at all.65 The mere signing of a statement claiming full knowledge of rights does not constitute a knowing and intelligent waiver as in Miranda where the typed paragraph was insufficient.66 The burden was not met in Vignera Westover or Stewart either.67 Records showed no warnings or waivers and the compelling atmosphere of prolonged interrogation overcame any free choice.68
The prosecution bears the burden of demonstrating a knowing and intelligent waiver which was not satisfied here.69
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justices Harlan And Stewart
Justice White dissented. The Court's rule is a new one.70 It is not compelled by the language of the Fifth Amendment.71
White argued that the rule will impair the ability of the police to obtain confessions from guilty persons.72 He maintained that the majority had created a constitutional straitjacket unsupported by precedent or history. White maintained that the traditional voluntariness test under due process was sufficient and that the new warnings would prevent many voluntary confessions from being admitted.73
In some unknown number of cases the Court's rule will return a killer a rapist or other criminal to the streets and to the environment which produced him to repeat his crime whenever it pleases him.74