LandmarkCases.org got a makeover! As part of this update, all LandmarkCases.org accounts have been taken out of service.
To access "Answers & Differentiation Ideas," users must now use a Street Law Store account. If you don’t have one already, it’s free and easy to sign up. It will also give you access to hundreds of additional resources and Supreme Court case summaries!
We apologize for any inconvenience, but hope that having only one Street Law account to remember will make your life easier. You can reach us at landmarkcases@streetlaw.org with any questions
- About
- About
- Site Credits
- Using the Site
- Legal Concepts
- Teaching Strategies
- Glossary
- About
- Site Credits
- Using the Site
- Legal Concepts
- Teaching Strategies
- Glossary
Miranda v. Arizona [1966] Self-Incrimination, Due Process
The Cases
- Brown v. Board of Education
- Dred Scott v. Sandford
- Engel v. Vitale
- Gibbons v. Ogden
- Gideon v. Wainwright
- Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
- Korematsu v. United States
- Mapp v. Ohio
- Marbury v. Madison
- McCulloch v. Maryland
- Miranda v. Arizona
- New Jersey v. T.L.O.
- Obergefell v. Hodges
- Plessy v. Ferguson
- Regents of the U. of California v. Bakke
- Roe v. Wade
- Schenck v. United States
- Texas v. Johnson
- Tinker v. Des Moines
- United States v. Nixon
Overview
“. . . the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.”
Chief Justice Earl Warren, speaking for the majority
This case explores the legal concepts of self-incrimination and due process.
Ernesto Miranda was arrested after a victim identified him as her assailant. The police officers who questioned him did not inform him of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination or of his Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of an attorney. He confessed to the crime, however, his attorney later argued that his confession should not have been used at his trial. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed, deciding that the police had not taken proper steps to inform Miranda of his constitutional rights.
For Students
This section is for students. Use the links below to download classroom-ready .PDFs of case resources and activities.
About the CaseFull Case Summaries
A thorough summary of case facts, issues, relevant constitutional provisions/statutes/precedents, arguments for each side, decision, and case impact.
- High School-Level
- Middle School-Level
Case Background and Vocabulary
Important background information and related vocabulary terms.
- Background Reading [Middle School ·]
- Background Reading [High School ··]
- Background Reading [Advanced ···]
- Vocabulary [Middle School ·]
- Vocabulary [High School/Advanced ··/···]
Visuals
- Diagram of How the Case Moved Through the Court System
- Case summary graphic organizer
Decision
- Summary of the Decision
- Key Excerpts from the Majority Opinion
- Key Excerpts from the Dissenting Opinion
The Case
- Miranda v. Arizona: A Primer
- Classifying Arguments Activity
- Miranda Warnings and the Bill of Rights
- Miranda and the Exclusionary Rule
After the Case
- Beyond Miranda
- Judicial Opinion Writing Activity: Dickerson v. United States [2000]
- Should the Miranda Warnings be Required Police Procedure?
- Unmarked Opinions Activity: Yarborough v. Alvarado [2004]
- Precedent and Stare Decisis
- Applying Precedents Activity: J.D.B. v. North Carolina [2011]
- Mini-Moot Court Activity: Florida v. Powell [2010]
- Document Analysis
For Teachers
This section is for teachers.
Use the links below to access:
- student versions of the activities in .PDF and Word formats
- how to differentiate and adapt the materials
- how to scaffold the activities
- how to extend the activities
- technology suggestions
- answers to select activities
[Learn more about Street Law's commitment and approach to quality curriculum.]
About the Case- Full Case Summaries: A summary of case facts, issues, relevant constitutional provisions/statutes/precedents, arguments for each side, decision, and impact. Available at a high school and middle school levels.
- Case Background: Background information at three reading levels.
- Case Vocabulary: Important related vocabulary terms at two reading levels.
- Diagram of How the Case Moved Through the Court System
- Case summary graphic organizer
- Decision: A summary of the decision and key excerpts from the opinion[s]
The Case
- Miranda v. Arizona: A Primer
- Classifying Arguments Activity
- Miranda Warnings and the Bill of Rights
- Miranda and the Exclusionary Rule
After the Case
- Beyond Miranda
- Judicial Opinion Writing Activity: Dickerson v. United States [2000]
- Should the Miranda Warnings be Required Police Procedure?
- Unmarked Opinions Activity: Yarborough v. Alvarado [2004]
- Precedent and Stare Decisis
- Applying Precedents Activity: J.D.B. v. North Carolina [2011]
- Mini-Moot Court Activity: Florida v. Powell [2010]
- Document Analysis
Teaching Strategies Used
- Applying Precedent
- Classifying Arguments
- Community Resource People
- Jigsaw
- Judicial Opinion Writing
- Mini-Moot Court
- Role-Plays
- Unmarked Opinions
Landmark Cases Glossary
The LandmarkCases.org glossary compiles all of the important vocab terms from case materials. It is provided as a view-only Google Sheet.
Glossary
Planning Time and Activities
If you have one day . . .
- Read the background summary [•••, ••, •] and answer the questions.
- Complete the Classifying Arguments Activity. Discuss which arguments the students find most convincing.
- Read Miranda v. Arizona: A Primer
- For homework, have students read the Key Excerpts from the Majority Opinion and Key Excerpts from the Dissenting Opinion and answer the questions. Follow-up the next day by reviewing the questions with students.
If you have two days . . .
Note to teachers: We recommend that you invite a community resource person, such as a police officer, judge, or lawyer, to assist in the activities described here for day three. Many of the scenarios are tricky and the answers can depend upon the nuances of state law.