Miranda v. Arizona

Context

The Constitution places value on both crime control and the rights of the accused. To the state and federal governments, the Constitution extends the authority to protect citizens' safety and to provide for the general security of the public. To an individual accused of crimes, it extends rights upon which governments may not infringe while investigating and prosecuting. The balance between government mandates and individual rights is delineated in the policies and practices employed by police and followed in court proceedings.

The Warren Court revolutionized the law of criminal procedure during the 1960s. Certain decisions increased the scope and reach of the constitutional rights of accused persons and established national standards for criminal procedures, applying across all states. Among the many cases that created this legacy, four stand out: Mapp v. Ohio (1961), Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), Escobedo v. Illinois (1964), and Miranda v. Arizona (1966). In the first three cases, the Court traveled a great distance in a very short time. These decisions spurred loud disapproval from advocates of crime control. In many quarters of the nation, the Court and especially the chief justice, Earl Warren, were roundly criticized, even vilified. But the decisions, as they piled up, also signaled to defendants convicted in lower courts and their attorneys that, where possible constitutional violations had occurred, the Warren Court was willing to hear pleas for reversal.

Ernesto Miranda was one of these defendants. The case unfolded as follows: A young woman in Phoenix reported to the police that she had been abducted and raped. Based on a description of the assailant's car, the police tracked down Miranda and, with his approval, brought him to the station at 10:30 a.m. for a lineup and questioning. At 1:30 p.m., Miranda wrote and signed a statement admitting to the abduction and rape. The subsequent trial proceeded quickly, with the written confession entered as evidence. The jury quickly returned unanimous guilty verdicts for kidnapping and rape.

On appeal to the Arizona State Supreme Court, Miranda's convictions were upheld, but that decision caught the attention of attorneys in Phoenix, who then made an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court on Miranda's behalf. In the spring of 1966, the case was argued before the Supreme Court, as consolidated with appeals of three other lower-court decisions, all folded into the same case.