| The Miranda warning is given by police officers of the United States
to suspects they have arrested and intend to question. The Miranda Rights
were mandated by the 1966 United States Supreme Court decision in the
case of Miranda v. Arizona. The Miranda Warning is a means of protecting
a criminal suspect's Fifth Amendment right not to be subjected to coerced
self-incrimination. This principle of law, though under different names,
has been adopted in some other jurisdictions that derive their legal systems
from English common law.
Miranda v. Arizona
Main article: Miranda v. Arizona
In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested for robbery, kidnapping, and rape.
He was interrogated by police and confessed. At trial, prosecutors offered
only his confession as evidence and he was convicted. The Supreme Court
ruled (Miranda v. Arizona 384 US 436 June 13, 1966) that Miranda was intimidated
by the interrogation and that he understood neither his right not to incriminate
himself nor his right to have counsel. On this basis, they overturned
his conviction. Miranda was retried, and this time the prosecutors did
not use the confession but rather made use of witnesses and other evidence.
Miranda was convicted, and served 11 years.
Miranda rights
The Supreme Court did not specify the exact wording to be used when informing
a suspect of his or her rights. However, they did set down a set of guidelines
which must be followed. The ruling states:
"...The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly
informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he
says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that
he has the right to consult with a attorney and to have that attorney
present during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, an attorney
will be provided at no cost to represent him."
As a result, the American English vocabulary has acquired a new verb,
"to Mirandize" meaning to read to a suspect, held in custody,
his or her Miranda rights.
Typical Miranda warning
Though every U.S. jurisdiction has its own regulations regarding what,
precisely, must be said to a person when they are arrested, the typical
warning is as follows:
You have the right to remain silent. If you give up that right, anything
you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the
right to an attorney and to have an attorney present during questioning.
If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to you at no cost.
The courts have since ruled that the warning must be "meaningful",
so it is usually required that the suspect be asked if he understands
his rights. Sometimes, firm answers of "yes" are required—an
arrestee's silence is not a waiver. Evidence has been ruled inadmissible
because of an arrestee's poor knowledge of English and the failure of
arresting officers to provide the warning in the arrestee's language.
The right of a juvenile to remain silent without his or her parent or
guardian present is also extended in some jurisdictions.
Confusion regarding the Miranda warning
Due to the prevalence of American TV police dramas in which the police
characters are constantly reading a suspect his or her rights, it has
become an expected element of arrest procedure. However, police are only
required to warn an individual whom they intend to question. Arrests can
occur without questioning and without the Miranda Warning. Furthermore,
if public safety warrants such action, the police may ask questions prior
to a reading of the Miranda warning.
Although Miranda v. Arizona, as a US court ruling, has no force outside
of the United States, some people outside the United States who have seen
many American television programs expect to hear the Miranda warning when
they are arrested. The British police use a differently worded warning,
that leans toward the suspect's defence rather than their prosecution:
You do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence if you do
not mention when questioned something that you later rely on in court.
Anything you say may be given in evidence.
Many countries (particularly those that do not derive their legal systems
from English common law) neither acknowledge nor allow a right to remain
silent, or a right to legal counsel.
|