Miranda v Arizona
What Is Miranda? Miranda Warning also known, as Miranda Rights is a warning given by police in the U.S to criminal suspects in police custody, before they are interrogated to preserve the admissibility of their statements against them in criminal proceedings. Miranda Warnings consist of the following: You have the right remain silent.
Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me? Police departments in Indiana, New Jersey, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Alaska add this sentence: “We have no way of giving you a lawyer, but one will be appointed for you, if you wish, if and when you go to court.
The suspect must give a clear answer to these questions. Silence isn’t acceptable as waiving these rights because the arrestee might not understand or speak English as his/her first language. If the Miranda Warnings has to be translated for a suspect, the translation is usually recorded. If the person implies at anytime prior to or during questioning, he/she wants to remain silent the interrogation must end. If the person says that they want an attorney, the interrogation must come to an end, until an attorney is present. At this time the person must have a chance to confer with their attorney and their attorney must be present during questioning.
If the accused person confesses to the authorities, the prosecution must prove to the judge that the defendant was informed of their Miranda Rights and knowingly waived those rights, before the confession can be introduced in the defendant’s criminal trial. It’s important to know that police are enforced to “Mirandize” a suspect if they plan to interrogate that person under custody. If the police do not inform a person or suspects of the Miranda Warning and he/she is being questioned, any statement or confession made is presumed to be involuntary and cannot be use against the person in any criminal case. Also, if any evidence discovered as a result of that statement or confession will likely be thrown out of the case. The Miranda Warnings do not have to be read in the exact order, and they do not have precisely match the language of the Miranda case as long as they are adequate and fully expressed. Law Enforcement can only ask for specific information such as name, date of birth and address without having read the suspects their Miranda Rights.
Six Rules There are six rules of Miranda. The Miranda rules administers to the use of testimonial evidence in criminal proceedings that is the product of police interrogation. Miranda right to counsel and right to remain silent are derived from the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment. For Miranda to apply, these six requirements must be fulfilled: Evidence must be gathered
The evidence must be offered by the state during a criminal prosecution Who, What, Where, When Miranda Rights were initiated in 1966 after a Supreme Courts decision in a case known as Miranda vs. Arizona. In Miranda vs. Arizona, Ernesto Arturo Miranda a laborer from Mesa, Arizona was convicted on kidnapping and raping an 18- year-old, mildly retarded woman and armed robbery charges based on his confession under police interrogation. During the trial the Supreme Court found that the Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights of Ernesto Miranda were violated during his arrest and interrogation. He was brought in for questioning, and confessed to the crime. He was not informed that he did not have to speak or that he could have a lawyer present.
The court ruled that the statements made to the police could not be used as evidence, since Miranda had not been advised of his rights. Since then, before any pertinent questioning of a suspect is done, the police are required to recite the Miranda Warning. This ruling has had a significant impact on law enforcement in the United States, by making what became known as the Miranda Rights part of routine police procedure to ensure that suspects were informed of their rights. The Supreme Court decided Miranda with three other consolidated cases: Westover vs. United States, Vignera vs. New York and California vs. Stewart. Miranda Warning became the law for all U.S citizens to ensure the accused is aware of, and reminded of, these rights under the U.S. Constitution, and that they know they can invoke them at any time during the arrest/questioning or interrogation.