Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
Miranda v. Arizona (1966): The Right to Remain Silent in Texas Criminal Cases
Police must warn you of your rights before custodial interrogation.
Background
Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix and interrogated for two hours without being told he had the right to remain silent or request an attorney. He confessed and was convicted. His case raised the question of whether confessions must be excluded when warnings are not provided.
Questions Presented
- Does the Fifth Amendment require safeguards during custodial questioning?
- Are statements obtained without warnings admissible?
Majority Opinion — Chief Justice Earl Warren
Holding: Statements from custodial interrogation are inadmissible unless the suspect is informed of their rights — including the right to remain silent and the right to counsel — and then knowingly waives them.
Warren stressed that custodial interrogation is inherently coercive, even without physical abuse. The opinion established the now-famous “Miranda warnings” to protect the Fifth Amendment privilege. Interrogation must stop immediately if the person invokes their rights. The State bears the burden of proving any waiver was voluntary and intelligent.
Texas cases frequently turn on what counts as “custody” and “interrogation.” Silence alone is not waiver. Police often try to avoid questioning until after “small talk” or “consensual conversation.” A seasoned defense attorney challenges those tactics, ensuring that any statement obtained in violation of Miranda stays out of the courtroom.
For anyone arrested in Montgomery County — whether for DWI, assault, or drug charges — this case guards one of the most fundamental protections you have: the right not to incriminate yourself.