Miranda v. Arizona

US Supreme Court decision of 1966 dealing with the admission into a trial of evidence obtained from suspects who are unaware of their rights. The petitioner, Ernesto Miranda, was convicted of kidnapping and rape after confessing to police interrogators. Miranda appealed the conviction, arguing that due process had been violated because he had not been informed of his rights before his confession. The Court voted 5 to 4 to overturn Miranda's conviction. The ruling mandated that in order for testimony to be admissible in criminal trials, suspects must have been informed (1) of the right to remain silent, (2) that anything they do or say will be used against them in court, (3) of the right to an attorney, and (4) of the right to a court-appointed attorney if unable to afford one.

The Miranda warning does not have to be given in five states following a federal court ruling on 8 February 1999. The ruling by a federal appeals court panel in Richmond, Virginia, affects Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, and South Carolina. People who voluntarily confess in those states can no longer be released on the technicality that they were not first read the Miranda warning.