In 1966, the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling in Miranda v. Arizona dramatically changed criminal procedures. The Court linked the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination to the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of a right to counsel and applied both to protect a suspect’s rights from arrest through trial. This lesson plan is based on the Annenberg Classroom video “The Right to Remain Silent: Miranda v. Arizona.”
The Right to Remain Silent: Miranda v. Arizona
This documentary explores the landmark Supreme Court decision Miranda v. Arizona that said criminal suspects, at the time of their arrest but before any interrogation, must be told of their Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination and Sixth Amendment right to an attorney. The decision led to the familiar Miranda warning that begins “You have the right to remain silent…”
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
This case summary provides teachers with everything they need to teach about Miranda v. Arizona (1966). It contains background information in the form of summaries and important vocabulary at three different reading levels, as well a review of relevant legal concepts, diagram of how the case moved through the court system, and summary of the decision. This resource also includes ten classroom-ready activities that teach about the case using interactive methods.
Chavez v. Martinez (2003)
Is a suspect’s right against self-incrimination and to due process violated if he is subjected to coercive questioning while in custody, even if his statements were never used against him? This case summary shows how the Supreme Court answered that question in 2003.
Hiibel v. Nevada (2004)
Does a state law that imposes criminal penalties for those who refuse to identify themselves violate the Fourth Amendment and/or Fifth Amendment? This case summary shows how the Supreme Court answered that question in 2004.
Florida v. Powell (2010)
Does the failure to provide explicit advice of one’s right to have a lawyer present during questioning invalidate Miranda warnings? This case summary shows how the Supreme Court answered that question in 2010.