Miranda v. Arizona
In November 1965, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Miranda's case,
Miranda v. Arizona, along with three other similar cases to clear all confusion created by the decision in
Escobedo v. Illinois. That previous case had ruled that: Under the circumstances of this case, where a police investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect in police custody who has been refused an opportunity to consult with his counsel and who has not been warned of his constitutional right to keep silent, the accused has been denied the assistance of counsel in violation of the
Sixth and
Fourteenth Amendments, and no statement extracted by the police during the interrogation may be used against him at a trial.
Crooker v. California, 357 U.S. 433, and
Cicenia v. Lagay, 357 U.S. 504, distinguished, and, to the extent that they may be inconsistent with the instant case, they are not controlling. 479–492. In January 1966, Flynn and Frank submitted their argument stating that Miranda's Sixth Amendment right to counsel had been violated by the
Phoenix Police Department. Two weeks later the State of Arizona responded by asserting that Miranda's rights had not been violated. The first day of the case was on the last day of February 1966. Because of the three companion cases and other information, the case had a second day of oral arguments on March 1, 1966. John Flynn for Miranda outlined the case and then stated that Miranda had not been advised of his right to remain silent when he had been arrested and questioned, adding the
Fifth Amendment argument to his case. Flynn contended that an emotionally disturbed man like Miranda, who had a limited education, should not be expected to know his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself. Gary Nelson represented the State of Arizona arguing that this was not a Fifth Amendment issue but just an attempt to expand the Sixth Amendment
Escobedo decision. He urged the justices to clarify their position, but not to push the limits of
Escobedo too far. He then told the court that forcing police to advise suspects of their rights would seriously obstruct public safety. The second day concerned arguments from related cases.
Thurgood Marshall, the former
NAACP attorney, was the last to argue. In his capacity as the Solicitor General, he presented the Johnson administration's view of the case: that the government did not have the resources to appoint a lawyer for every indigent person who was accused of a crime. Chief Justice
Earl Warren wrote the opinion in
Miranda v. Arizona. The decision was in favor of Miranda. It stated that: The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is
indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him. The opinion was released on June 13, 1966. Because of the decision, police departments throughout the U.S. started to issue
Miranda warning cards for their officers to recite. The Supreme Court did not mandate a specific wording and, although word choice is similar, the exact language used varies between jurisdictions. A generic admonition might look like this: ==Life after
Miranda v. Arizona==