Argumentation in Miranda v. Arizona

Abstract

This essay investigates the argumentation advanced in briefs, oral arguments, and the Court's opinion in the Supreme Court case of Miranda v. Arizona, an extremely important case in American constitutional law. The background of the case—including Escobedo v. Illinois—is considered first, followed by analysis of argumentation on granting certiorari, on Escobedo, and on balancing conflicting interests. In many places in its opinion, the Supreme Court adopts claims and arguments from the briefs of the winning side, suggesting that these arguments either influenced the Court's decision or provided a socially acceptable rationale for their decision. The evaluation of the competing arguments suggests that, in general, the arguments of the petitioner (Miranda) were superior to those of the respondent. This illustrates the importance of viewing the Supreme Court as an active participant in the decision‐making process.