Sixth.com

A landmark Supreme Court case, Miranda v. Arizona ruled that statements made by the accused under interrogation were only admissible as evidence when preceded with a right to consult an attorney. The 1966 decision followed the 1964 Escobedo v. Illinois ruling which limited law enforcement interrogation tactics, and established modern “Miranda Rights”.

The defendant, Ernesto Miranda confessed to kidnapping during an interrogation, but appealed the conviction, claiming his did not have sufficient legal representation during the process. Elevated from the Arizona State Supreme Court, the 5-4 decision came from then Chief Justice Earl Warren who overturned the conviction on the basis of both the 6th Amendment right to representation as well as 5th Amendment rights stating “(the accused) must prior to interrogation, be clearly informed…(of his rights.)” This ruling formed the modern “right to remain silent” as well as the core Miranda Rights.

Recent developments have challenged the Court’s ruling, including many exemptions to the rule in cases of public safety and unprompted confessions. In the 2000 case, Dickerson versus the United States, the Court ruled 7-2 (with Chief Justice Rehnquist delivering the opinion) that Miranda Warnings were Constitutional and “part of our national culture.” the 2004 Missouri versus Seibert case re-affirmed the ruling, establishing guidelines that required law enforcement to honor Miranda rights against coercion by law enforcement.