Miranda rights are cemented in every true crime fan's memory, but did you know they stemmed from an Arizona case? Here's what to know.

Called Miranda rights, the statement is an oath of constitutional rights, defined by the Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona. It all began when Ernesto Miranda was confronted at his Phoenix home ...

In 1966, the Supreme Court ruled that police must inform suspects of their Miranda Rights before speaking about the incident, following the case of Miranda V. Arizona in 1963, in which a suspect ...

What happened to Ernesto Miranda in his initial criminal trials? What did the Arizona Supreme Court decide on appeal? Explain its reasoning. What was Ernesto Miranda's argument in this case?

Jeff Rosen and Paul Cassel talked about the questions before the Supreme Court and the oral arguments for both sides in the case Miranda v. Arizona. Audio from the oral arguments was included.

But let's be clear about something — Ernesto Miranda, the man central to the 1966 landmark Miranda v. Arizona case argued before the U.S. Supreme Court, is no hero.

At the time, the Court was dealing with three other similar cases and combined them under the Miranda v. Arizona name. At issue were the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

Miranda is used as the paradigmatic example of a court creating a "prophylactic" rule. But maybe it isn't.

What is the constitutional basis for Miranda rights and when must those warnings be provided? Daniel Medwed: The whole concept of the Miranda warnings derives from a 1966 case, Miranda v. Arizona, in ...

In 1966, the Supreme Court ruled that police must inform suspects of their Miranda Rights before speaking about the incident, following the case of Miranda V. Arizona in 1963, in which a suspect ...

In 1966, the Supreme Court ruled that police must inform suspects of their Miranda Rights before speaking about the incident, following the case of Miranda V. Arizona in 1963, in which a suspect ...