Miranda v. Arizona: The Right to Remain Silent | John Malcolm

5-Minute Videos | PragerU

PragerU

Non-profit, Self-improvement, Education, Business, History

4.7 • 6.8K Ratings

🗓️ 29 September 2025

⏱️ 6 minutes

🔗️ Recording | iTunes | RSS

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

“You have the right to remain silent…” It’s one of the most famous phrases in American law. But where does it come from? In Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the Supreme Court ruled that police must inform suspects of their rights before questioning. John Malcolm of The Heritage Foundation explains how that decision reshaped criminal justice—and why it remains deeply controversial. Get all our content ad-free on PragerU.com or download the PragerU app: https://l.prageru.com/45GvWlu Follow PragerU on social media: YouTube Instagram X/Twitter Facebook Rumble Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0	You have the right to remain silent.
0:04.0	Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.
0:08.0	You have the right to talk to a lawyer and to have him present with you during questioning.
0:12.0	If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be provided for you.
0:16.0	Anybody who has ever watched a TV cop show or a Dirty Harry movie or read a police thriller
0:21.8	knows those words almost by heart.
0:24.8	They are now part of American culture.
0:27.7	Where did they come from?
0:29.5	They were not the invention of a Hollywood screenwriter.
0:32.7	They were the invention of five Supreme Court justices.
0:36.6	The words are a paraphrase of the court's ruling in the
0:40.0	1966 landmark Supreme Court case, Miranda v. Arizona. The case involved the rights of a
0:47.5	criminal suspect named Ernesto Miranda. Miranda was arrested in 1963 on suspicion of kidnapping and raping an 18-year-old girl.
0:58.2	Identified by the girl in a lineup, Miranda was questioned by the police and confessed to the crime.
1:05.0	He then wrote out his confession in his own hand.
1:08.4	At the top of each page were the printed words. This statement has been made
1:13.3	voluntarily and of my own free will. His confession was introduced at trial and he was convicted.
1:20.7	Miranda later repealed his conviction to the Supreme Court, arguing that he had not been advised
1:26.1	of his right to remain silent or to have an
1:28.0	attorney present during questioning. Therefore, he contended his confession was invalid. In a five-to-four
1:34.9	decision, the court agreed. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote the majority opinion. In-custody
1:42.7	interrogation, Warren asserted, was, by its very nature, intimidating.
	...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Previous episode | Next episode

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from PragerU, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of PragerU and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.