One of the most significant Supreme Court cases in U.S. history has its roots in Arizona and is closely tied to the state’s leading legal figures. Miranda has become a household word; now Gary Stuart tells the inside story of this famous case, and with it the legal history of the accused’s right to counsel and silence. Ernesto Miranda was an uneducated Hispanic man arrested in 1963 in connection with a series of sexual assaults, to which he confessed within hours. He was convicted not on the strength of eyewitness testimony or physical evidence but almost entirely because he had incriminated himself without knowing it—and without knowing that he didn’t have to. Miranda’s lawyers, John P. Frank and John F. Flynn, were among the most prominent in the state, and their work soon focused the entire country on the issue of their client’s rights. A 1966 Supreme Court decision held that Miranda’s rights had been violated and resulted in the now-famous "Miranda warnings." Stuart personally knows many of the figures involved in Miranda, and here he unravels its complex history, revealing how the defense attorneys created the argument brought before the Court and analyzing the competing societal interests involved in the case. He considers Miranda's aftermath—not only the test cases and ongoing political and legal debate but also what happened to Ernesto Miranda. He then updates the story to the Supreme Court’s 2000 Dickerson decision upholding Miranda and considers its implications for cases in the wake of 9/11 and the rights of suspected terrorists. Interviews with 24 individuals directly concerned with the decision—lawyers, judges, and police officers, as well as suspects, scholars, and ordinary citizens—offer observations on the case’s impact on law enforcement and on the rights of the accused. Ten years after the decision in the case that bears his name, Ernesto Miranda was murdered in a knife fight at a Phoenix bar, and his suspected killer was "Mirandized" before confessing to the crime. Miranda: The Story of America’s Right to Remain Silent considers the legacy of that case and its fate in the twenty-first century as we face new challenges in the criminal justice system.

This collection of essays looks at over 200 major court cases, at both state and federal levels, from the colonial period to the present. Organized thematically, the articles range from 1,000 to 5,000 words and include recent topics such as the Microsoft antitrust case, the O.J. Simpson trials, and the Clinton impeachment. This new edition includes 43 new essays as well as updates throughout, with end-of-essay bibliographies and indexes by case and subject/name.

Can the original goal of the authors of the Miranda law be salvaged? This book examines the state of interrogations and the state of the law before the Miranda decision was made, the purposes and nature of the decision, and proposes recommendations for reinstituting the original goals.

The Miranda warnings became part of the common lexicon after the Supreme Court decision in Miranda v Arizona in 1966. This book examines both sides of Miranda-related questions: Is the Miranda decision a violation of separation of powers or the concept of federalism? Does making mandatory the reading of the rules free guilty criminals? And more.

Examines how the Miranda right, "the right to remain silent" was implemented in the United States.

You have the right to remain silent is the well-known introduction to a series of statements police are required to communicate to accused criminals upon arrest. Known as the Miranda warning, these famous instructions are a direct result of the Supreme Court case, Miranda v. Arizona. Ernesto Miranda, an Arizona laborer, was arrested in 1963 and convicted of raping a woman. He appealed his conviction and the Supreme Court overturned the decision, determining that Arizona authorities had violated two constitutional amendments. Miranda v. Arizona offers a clear understanding of the history of this decision and its consequences. Before the Miranda warning, it was not uncommon for police station confessions to be obtained by intimidation, making false promises, psychological game-playing, physical torture, or exploiting the ignorance of the accused. The Supreme Court's decision allowed that the privileges granted to a defendant in a courtroom - the right to counsel, the right to due process, and the right to not witness against oneself - were now extended to the police station.

New in paperback. An in-depth collection of key writings on the Supreme Court's controversial 1966 ruling in Miranda v. Arizona, a decision that remains at the forefront of today's debate about defendants' constitutional rights, victims' rights, and crime control.

Earl Warren and the Warren Court comprises essays written by leading experts from the fields of law, history, and social science on the most important areas of the Warren Court's contributions in American law. In addition, Scheiber includes appraisals of the Warren Court's influence abroad, written by authorities of legal development in Europe, Latin America, Canada, and East Asia. This book offers a unique set of analyses that portray how innovations in American law generated by the Warren Court led to a reconsideration of law and the judicial role--and in many areas of the world, to transformations in judicial procedure and the advancement of substantive human rights. Also explored within these pages are the personal role of Earl Warren in the shaping of "Warren era" law and the ways in which his character and background influenced his role as Chief Justice.