Miranda rule – a criminal suspect in police custody must be informed of certain constitutional rights before being interrogated

     This page is continued from Criminal Proceedings >>>> 1. The Arrest, Search and Seizure, and Booking >>>> Interrogation:

************************

Miranda hearing:
(1966)

1. A pretrial proceeding held to determine whether the Miranda rule has been followed and thus whether the prosecutor may introduce into evidence the defendant’s statements to the police made after arrest.

Miranda rule (1966) 1. The doctrine that a criminal suspect in police custody must be informed of certain constitutional rights before being interrogated.  *  The suspect must be advised of the right to remain silent, the right to have an attorney present during questioning and the right to have an attorney appointed if the suspect cannot afford one.  If the suspect is not advised of these rights or does not validly wive them, and evidence obtained uring the interrogation cannot be used against the suspect at trial (except for impeachment purposes). Miranda v Arizona, 384 U.S., 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (1966). [1]

1. The Fifth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution require that, before a suspect who is in custody may be questioned, she must be informed that she has the right to remain silent and that anything she says may be used against her in court, be given the right to have an attorney present during questioning, and be advised that if she cannot afford an attorney one will be  provided for her.  If an interrogation occurs in the absence of these warnings, or in the absence of the suspect’s attorney, any confession obtained is inadmissible unless the defendant has intelligently and knowingly waived her “Miranda rights.” [3]

Mirandize vb. (1971) Slang. To read or recite (to an arrestee) rights under the Miranda rule <the suspect was arrested, Mirandized, and interrogated>. [1]

Miranda v. Arizona – A landmark decision of the Supreme Court (384 U.S. 436) in 1966, dealing with custodial interrogation, confessions, self-incrimination, and the fight to counsel.  The constitutional requirements announced by the Court in this case have come to be known as the Miranda rule. [3]

References:

Disclaimer: All material throughout this website is pertinent to people everywhere, and is being utilized in accordance with Fair Use.

[1]: Black’s Law Dictionary Deluxe Tenth Edition by Henry Campbell Black & Editor in Chief Bryan A. Garner. ISBN: 978-0-314-62130-6

[2]: Ballantine’s Law Dictionary with Pronunciations
Third Edition by James A. Ballantine (James Arthur 1871-1949).  Edited by William S. Anderson.  © 1969 by THE LAWYER’S CO-OPERATIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY.  Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 68-30931

[3]:  Ballantine’s Law Dictionary Legal Assistant Edition
by Jack Ballantine 
(James Arthur 1871-1949).  Doctored by Jack G. Handler, J.D. © 1994 Delmar by Thomson Learning.  ISBN 0-8273-4874-6.

*******************************

Back to Interrogation

Back to 1. The Arrest, Search and Seizure, and Booking

Back to Criminal Proceedings

Home Page

Like this website?

Please Support Our Fundraiser

or donate via PayPal:

 

Disclaimer: Wild Willpower does not condone the actions of Maximilian Robespierre, however the above quote is excellent!

This website is being broadcast for First Amendment purposes courtesy of

Question(s)?  Suggestion(s)?
Distance@WildWillpower.org.
We look forward to hearing from you!