Miranda v. Arizona
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
State v. Petrechko declined to extend its warnings to a precharge lineup, and State v. Marchbanks declined to extend its protections to an anticipatory assertion before a different-offense interrogation. The other reviewed opinions applied Miranda, reaffirmed it, rejected adverse-treatment arguments, reported other courts' treatment, or used nearby treatment language for unrelated rulings.
57,224 later cases cite Miranda v. Arizona; 1,509 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Miranda v. Arizona?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Limited
-
The court limited Miranda's rule barring tacit-admission evidence by refusing to apply it retroactively in Pennsylvania.
Commonwealth ex rel. Shadd v. Myers · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · filed
Therefore, after consideration of the purpose of the rule announced in Miranda> supra, concerning evidence of “tacit admissions,” the reliance placed upon this Court’s rulings in regard thereto for nearly a century and the obvious effect of its retroactive application on the administration of justice, we rule that it need not and will not be applied retroactively in Pennsylvania.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court limited Miranda's right-to-counsel warning requirement to prospective application and declined to apply it to an earlier confession.
Eagen v. State · Supreme Court of Alabama · filed
This was not error, for we have held the mandates of Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.E.2d 694, to be prospective only, Mathis v. State, 280 Ala. 16, 189 So.2d 564, 574; Clark v. State, 280 Ala. 493, 195 So.2d 786, and, therefore, it was not necessary for the deputy to so apprize the accused of his right to counsel at that time.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Supreme Court of Missouri declined to extend Miranda's appointed-counsel warning requirement to advice given before a precharge lineup.
State v. Petrechko · Supreme Court of Missouri · filed
The requirements of the Miranda decision has not been extended to include the advice necessary to be given to a suspect prior to a lineup, and we decline to so extend it.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Missouri Court of Appeals declined to extend Miranda to an anticipatory assertion of rights made before a later interrogation about a different offense.
State v. Marchbanks · Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District · filed
However, ... Edwards ... is only applicable after an effective invocation of ... Miranda ... rights. There is no such parallel rule regarding a voluntary waiver of ... Miranda ... rights in an interrogation regarding one offence which would somehow extend one's ... Miranda ... rights beyond the bounds of the current custodial interrogation into a new interrogation for a different offense arising from different conduct. Without clear direction from the Supreme Court, we decline to extend a ... Miranda ... rights violation to our current factual scenario.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Miranda v. Arizona and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace