Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions. You have the right to have a lawyer with you during questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish.
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. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish.
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:
Many countries around the world grant suspects the “right to remain silent” when they’ve been accused of a crime. And sometimes, keeping your mouth shut is the smartest move you can make.
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.
Simon’s defense attorney Robert Persse said that there were four times between October and November 2022 when Simon invoked her right to an attorney or to remain silent.
The right to silence in Australia is the protection given to a person during criminal proceedings from adverse consequences of remaining silent. It is sometimes referred to as the privilege against self-incrimination. It is used on any occasion when it is considered the person being spoken to is under suspicion of having committed one or more ...
Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that, unless and until a criminal suspect explicitly states that they are relying on their right to remain silent, their voluntary statements may be used in court and police may continue to question them.