Miranda v. Arizona
A plain-English summary from Criminal Defense Resources™, a free resource for pro per/pro se defendants and their families.
- Court
- U.S. Supreme Court
- Decided
- Citation
- 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
What did the court decide?
The Court held that statements made during custodial police interrogation cannot be used against the defendant unless police first give warnings: the right to remain silent, that statements can be used in court, the right to a lawyer, and that a lawyer will be appointed if the person cannot afford one.
Why does it matter?
This Arizona case created the familiar "Miranda warnings." The rule applies to custodial interrogation, meaning questioning when a person is not free to leave.
Where can I read the full opinion?
Read the full opinion on Cornell Law School LII →
Always read the full opinion and check whether later cases have limited or changed it. A summary can leave out important details.