A video case brief of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Read the full-text brief here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/miranda...

Ernesto Miranda (defendant) confessed after questioning by Arizona police while he was in custody at a police station. Before confessing, the police did not advise Miranda of his right to counsel. Miranda suffered from a mental illness. The State of Arizona (plaintiff) charged Miranda with kidnapping and rape. At trial, the court admitted his confession, and a jury convicted him. The Supreme Court of Arizona affirmed Miranda’s conviction. Like Miranda, Michael Vignera and Carl Westover (defendants) confessed to crimes after extensive custodial interrogations without being notified of their rights. Their convictions were affirmed. However, the Supreme Court of California reversed Roy Allen Stewart’s (defendant) conviction because the record was silent on whether he had been advised of his rights. Stewart had dropped out of school in the sixth grade. The United States Supreme Court accepted these four cases to determine what kinds of custodial-interrogation procedures were required to adequately safeguard the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The Court held that without certain hallmark warnings regarding the right to remain silent and the right to counsel, statements made during custodial interrogation were inadmissible at trial.