The Case > Supreme Court > The Arguments
Miranda v. Arizona: The Supreme Court Case Begins
Oral Arguments: February 28-March 1, 1966
Parties heard: 1. Ernesto Miranda (Delivered by John Flynn): Main Argument: Ernesto Miranda's 5th Amendment rights were violated because he had no knowledge of the 5th Amendment prior to his interrogation.
2. The State of Arizona (Delivered by Gary Nelson):
Main Argument: Not every person needed to be warned of his/her 5th Amendment rights before every interrogation.
3. The State of New York (Delivered by Telford Taylor):
Main Argument: There was nothing in the Constitution that required police officers to read detainees their 5th Amendment rights.
4. National District Attorney's Association (Delivered by Duane Nedrud):
Main Argument: To require the reading of Miranda rights would limit confessions, and would therefore prevent the police from protecting the people.
|
(*Note: Download .pdf files to view the full transcript of each party's oral argument.)
Credit for Transcripts of Oral Arguments: University of Minnesota
Credit for Transcripts of Oral Arguments: University of Minnesota