Transcript: Miranda v. Arizona

NARRATOR: In 1966, the court put an end to a practice that Hugo Black had seen and decried as a young prosecutor back in Birmingham in the 1920's.

DELLINGER: In Miranda against Arizona the Court finally came to the last stage of its concern with police brutality and interrogation techniques which they thought were unfair. And they did it in a fairly dramatic fashion. If you're going to admit a confession against a defendant at trial you've gotta show that he was warned that he had a right to remain silent. And more importantly, that he had a right to a lawyer if he wished one, and finally that if he couldn't afford a lawyer, the state would pay for one.

KOBYLKA: After the Warren Court, you cannot introduce illegally seized evidence into a trial-states can't do that; previously they could. After Gideon v. Wainwright, you have to have an attorney represent you in a trial. After Miranda, you cannot use a coerced confession in a trial to demonstrate guilt -- that has to be excluded from the trial. So what you do is you move from a state-based criminal justice system to a criminal justice system that has to conform with nationally imposed rules.