Hi, hanouf-ga:
The "Miranda decision" handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1966:
[Miranda vs Arizona: The Crime That Changed American Justice]
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/not_guilty/miranda/8.html?sect=14
was a modern landmark in the American criminal justice system. As
Mark Gribben quotes Chief Justice Earl Warren in writing the majority
opinion:
“The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or
inculpatory, stemming from 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, unless it
demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the
Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination,” Warren wrote,
creating the now-famous “Miranda Warning.”
It was as a result of this holding, building on the prior decision in
the Escobeda case, that police questioning of a suspect in custody
must be preceded by advising the suspect of their right to counsel and
to remain silent in order to avoid self-incrimination:
[The Miranda Warning]
http://www.usconstitution.net/miranda.html
Note that police are not required to "Mirandize" a suspect in order to
arrest them, and basic requests for information such as name and
identification are not covered by the Miranda requirement. Also
someone who is not a suspect does not have to be Mirandized prior to
questioning.
Ernesto Miranda won a new trial because of this decision, but there
was sufficient information independent of his excluded confession to
convict him again at his second trial. He died in a barroom brawl in
1976 after serving his sentence.
The Miranda decision has proven controversial, with a common argument
being that the police's ability to provide for the safety and security
of the public is impaired by any requirement to educate suspects about
the limitations of the police authority. However calls for
"impeachment" of Chief Justice Earl Warren (an Eisenhower appointee)
came to nought, and in various cases that provided the Supreme Court
an opportunity to revisit and perhaps weaken this "right of the
accused", the Miranda decision has been repeatedly affirmed. For a
recent example (2000) see:
[Dickerson vs. United States]
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=99-5525
regards, mathtalk
Search Strategy
Keywords: "Miranda decision"
://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22Miranda+decision%22
Keywords: "Miranda warning"
://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22Miranda+warning%22 |
Clarification of Answer by
mathtalk-ga
on
16 Feb 2003 21:50 PST
I used the verb "Mirandize" without explaining that it has come to
mean the advising of a suspect of their aforemention constitutional
rights to counsel and to avoid self-incrimination. It has come to be
standardized as "reading you your rights" as follows:
"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be
used against you in a court of law. You have the right to be speak to
an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning.
If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at
government expense."
This would then be followed by asking the suspect if he or she
understood these rights, as the courts would not accept this
notification if the suspect were mentally, emotionally, or
linguistically incapable of understanding them.
regards, mathtalk
|
