384 U.S. 436 (1966) Cited 60,290 times 64 Legal Analyses
Holding that statements obtained by custodial interrogation of a criminal defendant without warning of constitutional rights are inadmissible under the Fifth Amendment
Holding that the statute did not extend to cover remedies that were “different in kind from the enumerated remedies,” because “ more reasonable reading of the phrase ‘including, but not limited to,’ ... permitting only additional corrective remedies comports with the statutory construction doctrines of ejusdem generis, expressio unius est exclusio alterius and noscitur a sociis.”
Holding "[n]o reasonable juror would have interpreted these instructions to permit a conviction where the evidence shows that defendant was 'apparently' guilty, yet not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt"