Editing Miranda v. Arizona (section)

== Supreme Court decision ==
On June 13, 1966, the Supreme Court issued a 5–4 decision in Miranda's favor that overturned his conviction and remanded his case back to Arizona for retrial.

===Opinion of the Court===
[[File:Earl_Warren.jpg|thumb|right|upright=1.15|[[Chief Justice of the United States|Chief Justice]] [[Earl Warren]], the author of the majority opinion in ''Miranda'']]
Five justices formed the majority and joined an opinion written by Chief Justice [[Earl Warren]].{{sfnp|LaFave|Israel|King|Kerr|2015|loc=§&nbsp;6.5(b)}} The Court ruled that because of the coercive nature of the custodial interrogation by police (Warren cited several police training manuals that had not been provided in the arguments), no confession could be admissible under the [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fifth Amendment]] self-incrimination clause and [[Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Sixth Amendment]] right to an attorney unless a suspect has been made aware of his rights and the suspect has then waived them:

{{blockquote|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.<ref>Syllabus to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in ''Miranda v. Arizona'', holding 1.(d).</ref>}}

Thus, Miranda's conviction was overturned. The Court also made clear what must happen if a suspect chooses to exercise their rights:

{{blockquote|If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease ... If the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. At that time, the individual must have an opportunity to confer with the attorney and to have him present during any subsequent questioning.}}
[[File:Miranda justice brennan.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Justice Brennan's comments on the Miranda decision.]]

Warren also pointed to the existing procedures of the [[Federal Bureau of Investigation]] (FBI), which required informing a suspect of his right to remain silent and his right to counsel, provided free of charge if the suspect was unable to pay. If the suspect requested counsel, "the interview is terminated." Warren included the FBI's four-page brief in his opinion.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/06/10/cops-hated-miranda-warnings-but-the-fbi-helped-create-them/|title=The right to remain silent, brought you by J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI|last=Willing|first=Richard|date=June 10, 2016|newspaper=The Washington Post}}</ref>

=== Clark's concurrence in part, dissent in part ===
In a separate concurrence in part, dissent in part, Justice [[Tom C. Clark]] argued that the [[Warren Court]] went "too far too fast." Instead, Justice Clark would use the "[[totality of the circumstances]]" test enunciated by [[Arthur Goldberg|Justice Goldberg]] in ''Haynes v. Washington''. Under this test, the court would:

{{blockquote|consider in each case whether the police officer prior to custodial interrogation added the warning that the suspect might have counsel present at the interrogation and, further, that a court would appoint one at his request if he was too poor to employ counsel. In the absence of warnings, the burden would be on the State to prove that counsel was knowingly and intelligently waived or that in the totality of the circumstances, including the failure to give the necessary warnings, the confession was clearly voluntary.}}

=== Harlan's dissent ===
In dissent, Justice [[John Marshall Harlan II]] wrote that "nothing in the letter or the spirit of the Constitution or in the precedents squares with the heavy-handed and one-sided action that is so precipitously taken by the Court in the name of fulfilling its constitutional responsibilities." Harlan closed his remarks by quoting former Justice [[Robert H. Jackson]]: "This Court is forever adding new stories to the temples of constitutional law, and the temples have a way of collapsing when one story too many is added."

=== White's dissent ===
Justice [[Byron White]] took issue with the court having announced a new constitutional right when it had no "factual and textual bases" in the Constitution or previous opinions of the Court for the rule announced in the opinion. He stated: "The proposition that the privilege against self-incrimination forbids in-custody interrogation without the warnings specified in the majority opinion and without a clear waiver of counsel has no significant support in the history of the privilege or in the language of the Fifth Amendment." White did not believe the right had any basis in English common law.

White further warned of the dire consequences of the majority opinion:

{{blockquote|I have no desire whatsoever to share the responsibility for any such impact on the present criminal process.

In some unknown number of cases, the Court's rule will return a killer, a rapist or other criminal to the streets and to the environment which produced him, to repeat his crime whenever it pleases him. As a consequence, there will not be a gain, but a loss, in human dignity.}}