Miranda v. Arizona reshaped modern interrogation by recognizing that custodial questioning creates psychological pressure that can compel statements. The Supreme Court held that the Fifth Amendment requires suspects to be advised of their right to remain silent and to an attorney before custodial interrogation. These protections safeguard voluntary statements, reduce coercion, and preserve the integrity and reliability of evidence obtained during interviews.

This article provides a practical reference to key U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) cases that shape modern interviewing and interrogation. Rather than legal analysis, it offers short narratives explaining what happened in each case and why statements matter. Together, these decisions highlight concerns about custody, pressure, and voluntariness. Science-Based Interviewing aligns with this framework by prioritizing ethical, research-driven information gathering over coercive inter

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects against self-incrimination, double jeopardy, and deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process. It also ensures grand jury indictments and fair compensation for property seized under eminent domain. These rights are crucial in criminal cases, especially during interrogation, where protections like Miranda warnings safeguard suspects from coercion and uphold justice.