Miranda v. Arizona
E8268
Miranda v. Arizona is a landmark 1966 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the requirement for police to inform criminal suspects of their rights to remain silent and to have an attorney present during custodial interrogations.
All labels observed (9)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Miranda v. Arizona canonical | 22 |
| Miranda warnings | 6 |
| Miranda rights | 3 |
| Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) | 2 |
| Miranda v. Arizona decision | 1 |
| Miranda v. Arizona doctrine | 1 |
| Miranda v. Arizona precedent | 1 |
| Miranda warning | 1 |
| Miranda warnings doctrine | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T79031 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Miranda v. Arizona Context triple: [American Civil Liberties Union, notableCase, Miranda v. Arizona]
-
A.
Gideon v. Wainwright
Gideon v. Wainwright is a landmark 1963 U.S. Supreme Court decision that guaranteed the right to court-appointed counsel for criminal defendants who cannot afford an attorney.
-
B.
Reynolds v. United States
Reynolds v. United States is an 1879 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the distinction between protected religious belief and regulable religiously motivated conduct, holding that the Free Exercise Clause does not excuse individuals from compliance with otherwise valid criminal laws such as those banning polygamy.
-
C.
Arizona v. United States
Arizona v. United States is a 2012 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited state authority over immigration enforcement by affirming broad federal power in this area.
-
D.
United States v. Nixon
United States v. Nixon was a landmark 1974 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited presidential privilege and compelled President Richard Nixon to release the Watergate tapes, reinforcing the principle that not even the president is above the law.
-
E.
United States v. Lopez
United States v. Lopez is a 1995 U.S. Supreme Court case that marked the first time in decades the Court struck down a federal law for exceeding Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause, signaling a revival of limits on federal regulatory authority.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Miranda v. Arizona Target entity description: Miranda v. Arizona is a landmark 1966 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the requirement for police to inform criminal suspects of their rights to remain silent and to have an attorney present during custodial interrogations.
-
A.
Gideon v. Wainwright
Gideon v. Wainwright is a landmark 1963 U.S. Supreme Court decision that guaranteed the right to court-appointed counsel for criminal defendants who cannot afford an attorney.
-
B.
Reynolds v. United States
Reynolds v. United States is an 1879 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the distinction between protected religious belief and regulable religiously motivated conduct, holding that the Free Exercise Clause does not excuse individuals from compliance with otherwise valid criminal laws such as those banning polygamy.
-
C.
Arizona v. United States
Arizona v. United States is a 2012 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited state authority over immigration enforcement by affirming broad federal power in this area.
-
D.
United States v. Nixon
United States v. Nixon was a landmark 1974 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited presidential privilege and compelled President Richard Nixon to release the Watergate tapes, reinforcing the principle that not even the president is above the law.
-
E.
United States v. Lopez
United States v. Lopez is a 1995 U.S. Supreme Court case that marked the first time in decades the Court struck down a federal law for exceeding Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause, signaling a revival of limits on federal regulatory authority.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (48)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
constitutional law case ⓘ criminal procedure case ⓘ landmark decision ⓘ |
| appliesTo |
custodial interrogation
ⓘ
police questioning of suspects in custody ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
constitutional criminal procedure
ⓘ
criminal procedure ⓘ |
| citation | 384 U.S. 436 ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted |
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
ⓘ
surface form:
U.S. Constitution, Fifth Amendment
Fourteenth Amendment ⓘ
surface form:
U.S. Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment
U.S. Constitution, Sixth Amendment ⓘ |
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| createdDoctrine |
Miranda v. Arizona
self-linksurface differs
ⓘ
surface form:
Miranda rights
Miranda v. Arizona self-linksurface differs ⓘ
surface form:
Miranda warnings
|
| decisionDate | 1966-06-13 ⓘ |
| effect |
Established nationwide requirement for Miranda warnings by law enforcement
ⓘ
Made unwarned custodial statements generally inadmissible in the prosecution’s case-in-chief ⓘ |
| fullName |
Miranda v. Arizona
self-linksurface differs
ⓘ
surface form:
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
|
| geographicScope | all U.S. states and territories ⓘ |
| holding |
If a suspect indicates in any manner that they wish to remain silent, interrogation must cease.
ⓘ
If a suspect requests an attorney, interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. ⓘ Prosecution may not use statements stemming from custodial interrogation of a defendant unless procedural safeguards are used to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. ⓘ Suspects in custody must be informed of their right to remain silent and their right to an attorney before interrogation. ⓘ |
| jurisdiction |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| legalIssue |
Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination
ⓘ
Sixth Amendment right to counsel ⓘ admissibility of custodial confessions ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy |
Earl Warren
ⓘ
surface form:
Chief Justice Earl Warren
|
| majorityVote | 5-4 ⓘ |
| namedAfter |
Ernesto Arturo Miranda
ⓘ
surface form:
Ernesto Miranda
|
| overruledBy | none ⓘ |
| petitioner | Ernesto Arturo Miranda ⓘ |
| relatedCase |
Dickerson v. United States
ⓘ
Escobedo v. Illinois ⓘ |
| requiredWarning |
Anything said can and will be used against the suspect in court
ⓘ
If the suspect cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed before questioning if desired ⓘ Right to consult with an attorney and to have the attorney present during questioning ⓘ Right to remain silent ⓘ |
| requires | voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver of rights before questioning ⓘ |
| respondent |
U.S. state of Arizona
ⓘ
surface form:
State of Arizona
|
| standardOfWaiver |
knowing and intelligent
ⓘ
voluntary ⓘ |
| stateOfOrigin | Arizona ⓘ |
| status | good law as of 2024 ⓘ |
| subjectMatter |
police interrogation practices
ⓘ
rights of criminal suspects ⓘ |
| yearDecided | 1966 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Miranda v. Arizona Description of subject: Miranda v. Arizona is a landmark 1966 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the requirement for police to inform criminal suspects of their rights to remain silent and to have an attorney present during custodial interrogations.
Referenced by (38)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
subject surface form:
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
this entity surface form:
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
this entity surface form:
Miranda warnings
this entity surface form:
Miranda rights
this entity surface form:
Miranda v. Arizona decision
this entity surface form:
Miranda rights
this entity surface form:
Miranda warning
this entity surface form:
Miranda rights
this entity surface form:
Miranda warnings doctrine
this entity surface form:
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
this entity surface form:
Miranda warnings
subject surface form:
Ernesto Arturo Miranda
this entity surface form:
Miranda warnings
this entity surface form:
Miranda v. Arizona precedent
this entity surface form:
Miranda v. Arizona doctrine
this entity surface form:
Miranda warnings
this entity surface form:
Miranda warnings
subject surface form:
Escobedo v. Illinois
subject surface form:
Gideon's Trumpet
this entity surface form:
Miranda warnings