Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In the United States, the Miranda warning is a type of notification customarily given by police to criminal suspects in police custody (or in a custodial interrogation) advising them of their right to silence and, in effect, protection from self-incrimination; that is, their right to refuse to answer questions or provide information to law enforcement or other officials.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that law enforcement in the United States must warn a person of their constitutional rights before interrogating them, or else the person's statements cannot be used as evidence at their trial.
The person suspected of handing the knife to the man who murdered Miranda invoked his Fifth Amendment rights and refused to talk to police. He was released and was not charged in Miranda's murder. [12] The man suspected of murdering Miranda, then-23-year-old Eseziquiel Moreno Perez, was formally charged with murder on February 4, 1976. [6]
On Thursday, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Carlos Vega v. Terence B. Tekoh that a plaintiff may not sue a police officer for obtaining an improper admission of an “un-Mirandized ...
The form of the Miranda warning varies based on jurisdiction, but it usually follows this pattern: You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law. 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.
You do not have to say anything unless you wish to do so, but anything you do say will be taken down and may be given in evidence. This is similar to the right to silence clause in the Miranda Warning in the US. [4] PACE Code C, one of the codes of practice issued under PACE, was modified to specify a uniform wording for the caution, namely:
Under Miranda v. Arizona, evidence obtained by police during interrogation of a suspect before he has been read his Miranda rights is inadmissible. [1] Here, however, the defendant had been indicted in court and had asserted his desire to have counsel, thus his Sixth Amendment right to counsel had attached.
This page was last edited on 29 November 2004, at 19:59 (UTC).; Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License; additional terms may apply.