Miranda v. Arizona 1966
This year’s Law Day theme is based on the 50th anniversary of Miranda v. Arizona. On March
13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested by the Phoenix, AZ Police Department. Circumstantial
evidence linked him to the kidnapping and rape of a teenager that had occurred ten days earlier.
After two hours of interrogation by police officers, Miranda signed a confession to the rape
charge on forms that included the typed statement: "I do hereby swear that I make this statement
voluntarily and of my own free will, with no threats, coercion, or promises of immunity, and
with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against
me.”
Miranda had neither been advised of his legal right to an attorney nor that any statements he
made could be used against him. His court appointed attorney, Alvin Moore, objected to the
written confession being used as evidence because Miranda had not been informed of his rights.
Moore’s objection was overruled, Miranda was convicted and sentenced to 20-30 years of
imprisonment.
Moore filed an appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court which affirmed the decision, emphasizing
that Miranda had not specifically requested an attorney. In 1966, Miranda appealed to the
Supreme Court, claiming his confession was unconstitutional. The Court looked at four different
cases, each of which involved a defendant being questioned without being advised of his rights
prior to being interrogated. The cases had gone before the state Supreme Courts; three were
affirmed, one was overturned.
The Supreme Court decision was 5-4 with Chief Justice Earl Warren writing the opinion. The
decision was based on the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees a criminal defendant the right to
an attorney, and the Fifth Amendment, which protects against self-incrimination.
Ernesto Miranda was retried without his confession used as evidence. He was convicted and
sentenced to 20-30 years in prison again.
Miranda v Arizona created the mandatory “Miranda Rights.” These rights are familiar to many
due to television police programs. The Miranda warning is normally given when a person is
arrested but the rights are present during any “custodial interrogation.” This means if a person is
substantially deprived of their freedom and not free to leave, he/she must be informed of these
rights even if the suspect has not been formally arrested. So, two things must take place before a
Miranda warning is given: a person must be in custody or under arrest and the police must be
questioning the suspect.
The Miranda warning consists of four elements and confirmation of understanding.
1. You have the right to remain silent.
2. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.
3. You have the right to an attorney.
4. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you.
Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to
speak to me?
The confirmation questions must be answered clearly and in the affirmative. Not answering does
not mean the person has waived their rights.
Objectives: Students will





Understand the historical events to the lead to the right to remain silent.
Recognize the impacts brought about by Miranda v. Arizona
Defend a position related to Miranda
Gain insight into the reasoning used by the Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona
Come to a better understanding of the constitutional rights afforded due each person in
our system of justice
 Make real-world connections
Activity Set 1 – To Mirandize or Not to Mirandize
To check understanding of the two things that must be in place before a Miranda warning is
given, have your students create and act out vignettes. They may do this individually or in
groups. After each vignette has finished, have the remainder of the class decide if the situation
required a Miranda warning.
Example vignettes:
Officers respond to a domestic violence call. A man is standing on his porch with a weapon.
Police order him to drop the weapon, he does and then explains why he shot his wife.
To Mirandize or not to Mirandize
Three teenagers are standing beside a building in the evening. An officer asks what they are
doing.
To Mirandize or not to Mirandize
Activity Set Two – Discussion Questions
Have your students review each of the four statements of the Miranda warning and identify
which Amendment the sentences support.
Do juveniles have Miranda rights? Why or why not?
Why does it matter if people who are in custody are advised of their rights?
The Miranda decision was a close one and even today people question its requirements. Ask your
students who might not like the Miranda warning and then have them explain their reasoning.
Do your students think terrorists deserve Miranda rights? Why or why not.