Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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.
Ernesto Arturo Miranda (March 9, 1941 – January 31, 1976) was an American laborer whose criminal conviction was set aside in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona , which ruled that criminal suspects must be informed of their right against self-incrimination and their right to consult with an attorney before being questioned ...
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.
Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387 (1977), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court that clarifies what constitutes "waiver" of the right to counsel for the purposes of the Sixth Amendment. Under Miranda v. Arizona, evidence obtained by police during interrogation of a suspect before he has been read his Miranda rights is inadmissible. [1]
Phrasing of the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona: New York v. Belton: 453 U.S. 454 (1981) scope of a lawful search incident to the arrest of a passenger in an automobile includes things inside the passenger compartment Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego: 453 U.S. 490 (1981) Municipal regulation of billboards under the First Amendment
An Arizona rancher who was unsuccessfully tried in the fatal shooting of a Mexican man on his property will not be retried, a judge ruled Tuesday. Santa Cruz County Superior Court Judge Thomas ...
Jurors in the case of an Arizona rancher charged with fatally shooting a migrant on his property will be allowed to visit the ranch near the border with Mexico as early as this week as the trial ...
The Court noted in a supplemental opinion that the case law it had relied on was all focused on Miranda warnings, not confessions, and there was other case law that said involuntary confessions could never be harmless. [1] The Court therefore ordered a new trial. The state of Arizona appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.