Justice Navigator

Back to Lessons

Landmark Cases That Shaped the Justice System

Learn about the big court cases that protect your rights today.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

Your Right to Remain Silent and Have a Lawyer

This is one of the most famous cases. Because of this case, police have to read you your "Miranda Rights" when they arrest you. This includes:

  • You have the right to remain silent.
  • Anything you say can be used against you in court.
  • You have the right to an attorney (a lawyer).
  • If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you.

This case ensures that people know their rights before they are questioned by police.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

Your Right to a Free Lawyer

Before this case, if you were poor and accused of a serious crime, you might have had to defend yourself in court without a lawyer. Clarence Gideon was in this situation and fought it all the way to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court decided that this was unfair. Thanks to this case, everyone accused of a serious crime has the right to a lawyer, even if they can't afford to pay for one. The government must provide a lawyer (like a public defender) for free.

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

The "Exclusionary Rule"

This case is all about the 4th Amendment, which protects you from "unreasonable searches." Police illegally searched Dollree Mapp's house without a proper warrant and used what they found to convict her.

The Supreme Court said this was wrong. They created the "exclusionary rule," which means that if police find evidence by breaking the law (like an illegal search), that evidence cannot be used against you in court. This rule makes sure police have to follow the law, too.

Official Legal Holdings
These are the direct legal conclusions from the U.S. Supreme Court for these cases. The language is complex and from the original court documents.

Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972)

"[A] person charged by a State with a criminal offense who is committed solely on account of his incapacity to proceed to trial cannot be held more than the reasonable period of time necessary to determine whether there is a substantial probability that he will attain that capacity in the foreseeable future. If it is determined that this is not the case, then the State must either institute the customary civil commitment proceeding that would be required to commit indefinitely any other citizen, or release the defendant. Furthermore, even if it is determined that the defendant probably will be able to stand trial soon, his continued commitment must be justified by progress toward that goal."

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)

"The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way... He must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires."