«You have the right to remain silent. If you give
up 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 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. During any questioning, you may decide at any
time to exercise these rights, not answer any questions or make any statements.
Do you understand these rights as I have read them to you? »
The Miranda warning
or Miranda rights, is a right to
silence warning given by police in the United States to criminal
suspects in police custody (or in a custodial interrogation) before they
are interrogated to preserve the admissibility of their statements against them
in criminal proceedings.
The Miranda warning
is part of a preventive criminal procedure rule that law enforcement are
required to administer to protect an individual who is in custody and subject
to direct questioning or its functional equivalent from a violation of his or
her Fifth
Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination.
In Miranda
v. Arizona (1966), the Supreme Court held that
the admission of an elicited incriminating statement by a suspect not
informed of these rights violates the Fifth Amendment and the Sixth
Amendment right to counsel, through the incorporation of these rights into
state law. Thus, if law enforcement officials decline to offer a Miranda warning
to an individual in their custody, they may interrogate that person and act
upon the knowledge gained, but may not use that person's statements as evidence
against him or her in a criminal trial.
The concept of
"Miranda rights" was enshrined in U.S. law following the
1966 Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court decision, which found
that the Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights of Ernesto Arturo
Miranda had been violated during his arrest and trial for armed robbery,
kidnapping, and rape of a mentally handicapped young woman (Miranda was
subsequently retried and convicted, based primarily on his estranged
ex-partner, who had been tracked down by the original arresting officer via
Ernesto's own parents, suddenly claiming that Ernesto had confessed to her when
she had visited him in jail; Ernesto's lawyer later confessed that he 'goofed'
the trial).
The circumstances
triggering the Miranda safeguards, i.e. Miranda rights, are "custody"
and "interrogation". Custody means formal arrest or the deprivation
of freedom to an extent associated with formal arrest. Interrogation means
explicit questioning or actions that are reasonably likely to elicit an
incriminating response. The Supreme Court did not specify the exact wording to
use when informing a suspect of his/her rights. However, the Court did create a
set of guidelines that must be followed. The ruling states:
The person in
custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he/she has
the right to remain silent, and that anything the person says will be used
against that person in court; the person must be clearly informed that he/she
has the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present
during questioning, and that, if he/she is indigent, an attorney will be
provided at no cost to represent him/her.
Every U.S.
jurisdiction has its own regulations regarding what, precisely, must be said to
a person arrested or placed in a custodial situation. The typical warning
states:
·
You
have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions.
·
Anything
you say may 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.
·
If
you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present, you will still
have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney.
·
Knowing
and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing
to answer my questions without an attorney present?
The courts have
since ruled that the warning must be "meaningful", so it is usually
required that the suspect be asked if he/she understands their rights.
Ernesto Arturo
Miranda (March 9,
1941 – January 31, 1976) was a laborer whose conviction on kidnapping, rape,
and armed robbery charges based on his confession under police interrogation
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 by police. This warning is known as a Miranda warning.
After the Supreme
Court decision set aside Miranda's initial conviction, the state of Arizona
retried him. At the second trial, with his confession excluded from evidence,
he was again convicted.
