“. . . 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.



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  

About the Case


Learning Activities

The Case

After the Case


Teacher Resources

Teaching Strategies Used

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 two. Many of the scenarios are tricky and the answers can depend upon the nuances of state law.

  • Complete all activities for the first day (excluding the homework).
  • On the second day, complete Miranda Warnings and the Bill of Rights to help refresh students' memories of how the Bill of Rights relates to the Miranda warnings.
  • Complete Beyond Miranda
  • 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 three 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.

  • Complete all activities suggested for the first and second days (including homework).
  • Complete the jigsaw activity Should Miranda Warnings Be Required Police Procedure?
  • Complete Judicial Opinion Writing Activity: Dickerson v. United States (2000). To simplify, complete Unmarked Opinions Activity: Yarborough v. Alvarado (2004).
  • For homework in advanced classes, complete Precedent and Stare Decisis. In on level or middle school classes, complete Document Analysis: “Impeach Earl Warren” Postcard.

If you have four days . . .

  • Complete all the activities for the first, second, and third days (excluding homework on the third day).
  • On the fourth day, conduct the Mini-Moot Court Activity: Florida v. Powell (2010).
  • For homework in advanced classes, complete Precedent and Stare Decisis. In on level or middle school classes, complete Document Analysis: “Impeach Earl Warren” Postcard.
Return to Case Listing