Get it on Google Play Preorder Audio Law Reader from App Store

Case Digest on Miranda v. Arizona

Any statement obtained in violation of the Miranda rights are deemed inadmissible in court.

This is the doctrine established in the U.S. landmark case of Miranda v. Arizona in 1966. Check out this two-minute case digest by Audio Law Reader.πŸŽ§πŸ“š



Ernesto Miranda was arrested at his home by police officers as he was suspected of being involved in kidnapping and rape. Miranda was taken into custody and was subjected to interrogation, where a written confession had been obtained from him, without being informed of his right to remain silent or his right to have an attorney. The written confession was admitted into evidence at trial despite the objection of the defense attorney.

The jury found Miranda guilty, and on appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona affirmed that Miranda’s constitutional rights were not violated as he did not specifically request counsel. Hence, this appeal to the Supreme Court of the U.S.


Whether Miranda's confession could be considered valid evidence, given that he had not been informed of his constitutional rights during the interrogation


No, Miranda’s confession is not valid evidence. The Court ruled that his confession was inadmissible in court because he had not been informed of his rights before the interrogation.

The Court held that the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination applied to police interrogations, particularly when suspects were in custody and not free to leave. It also affirmed that the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel was applicable to the interrogation phase of criminal proceedings, and that law enforcement officers must inform individuals of their rights before custodial interrogations take place. These rights include the right to remain silent and the right to have an attorney present during questioning.

The Court's decision led to the creation of the "Miranda warning," a set of statements that law enforcement officers must read to suspects before beginning an interrogation.


The ruling in Miranda v. Arizona established a crucial precedent for safeguarding the rights of individuals in police custody. The "Miranda warning" has since become an integral part of law enforcement practices, emphasizing the importance of upholding suspects' Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights during the investigation and legal proceedings.

πŸŽ“ Audio Law Reader: The Ultimate Study Companion for Law & Case Law πŸŽ“