gavel

Miranda Rights

by Roger Chartier:

Here is what the US Supreme Court Says:

"The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he or she has the right to remain silent, and that anything the person says may be used against that person in court; the person must be clearly informed that he or she has the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present during questioning, and that, if he or she is indigent, an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent him or her."

There are common versions utilized that differ. Some are more specific than others.

One common usage is:

"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 have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights?"

Another more specific one is this:

You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions. Do you understand?
Anything you do say may be used against you in a court of law. Do you understand?
You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future. Do you understand?
If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish.
Do you understand?
If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney. Do you understand?
Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?

HandcuffsThere are a lot of differing technicalities about cases being dismissed because of language comprehension etc.

These rights are defined by the Supreme Court after the case of Miranda v Arizona.

Ernesto Miranda was accused of kidnapping and raping an 18-year-old, mildly retarded woman in 1963. During questioning he confessed to the crime. He was not told that he had specific rights as at the time the police did not have to give people their rights.

He didn't know that and did not have to speak or that he could have a lawyer present.
Miranda's lawyer tried to get the confession thrown out during the trial, the result was that the motion was denied. The Supreme Court, in 1966 ruled that the statements made to the police could not be used as evidence, since Miranda had not been advised of his rights.

A person does not have to be given their rights to be arrested but before any pertinent questioning the police must use these these basic elements in notifying the person of their rights, the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney.

Having been given these rights a person has been "Mirandized".
If a person is not a suspect they do not have to be given their Miranda Rights.

When you have been read your rights, you are said to have been "Mirandized."

Ernesto Miranda had his conviction thrown out.
He was still convicted in a second trial for the crime with different evidence and he did time for it.

In the end he got killed in a barroom fight after release.

Disclaimer - Privacy Policy