LANDMARK CASE

Miranda v. Arizona

384 U.S. 436 (1966) · Supreme Court of the United States · Criminal procedure

At a glance

Citation: 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Area of law: Criminal procedure
In one line: Yes. Suspects must be told of the right to silence and to a lawyer, or statements are inadmissible.

1 Facts

Ernesto Miranda confessed during police interrogation without being told of his rights.

2 Issue

Must police warn suspects of their rights before custodial questioning?

3 What the court decided

Yes. Suspects must be told of the right to silence and to a lawyer, or statements are inadmissible.

4 Why it matters

The 'Miranda warning' influenced arrest safeguards worldwide, including D.K. Basu.

5 Think about it

Compare Miranda with Nandini Satpathy.

6 Analyse it yourself

Read the full judgment from an official source or a law database, then brief it in seven steps: facts, issues, arguments, decision, ratio, obiter and significance. Always check the citation before you rely on it.

7 More cases on Criminal procedure

Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. Union of India (2020) 14 SCC 12
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273
D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303
Gideon v. Wainwright 372 U.S. 335 (1963)
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565

All 366 landmark cases · Today's Case of the Day · Weekly quiz

← Minerva Mills v. Union of India Mithu v. State of Punjab →

A short teaching summary for students. Educational content only, not legal advice.