Miranda rights


Also found in: Dictionary, Wikipedia.

Miranda rights (Miranda rule, Miranda warning)

n. the requirement set by the U. S. Supreme Court in Miranda v. Alabama (1966) that prior to the time of arrest and any interrogation of a person suspected of a crime, he/she must be told that he/she has: "the right to remain silent, the right to legal counsel, and the right to be told that anything he/she says can be used in court against" him/her. Further, if the accused person confesses to the authorities, the prosecution must prove to the judge that the defendant was informed of them and knowingly waived those rights, before the confession can be introduced in the defendant's criminal trial. The warnings are known as "Miranda Rights" or just "rights." The Miranda rule supposedly prevents self-incrimination in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. Sometimes there is a question of admissibility of answers to questions made by the defendant before he/she was considered a prime suspect, raising a factual issue as to what is a prime suspect and when does a person become such a suspect? (See: rights)

References in periodicals archive ?
without first advising them of the Miranda rights and obtaining a waiver
Jones said his claim that he wasn't read his Miranda rights which if true could scuttle the legal case against him--could be corroborated by videos taken of his arrest.
Although Salinas was not under arrest at the time of questioning, and was therefore not read his Miranda rights, his silence was permitted to be used against him because he did not plead the Fifth Amendment.
Furthermore, the Court is also content with the notion that a waiver of Miranda rights must not impede the compelling goal of securing confessions from criminal suspects.
The police officer conveys Miranda rights to the suspect through a formalized recitation of the warnings.
Enemy combatants will get their day in court but will not be treated as common criminals who can invoke Miranda rights.
Arizona, (54) which drastically changed the landscape of confession suppression jurisprudence and shifted much of the courts', litigants', and commentators' attention from the due process issue of involuntariness to issues concerning the application and waiver of Miranda rights.
For a criminal defendant's statement during a custodial interrogation to be admissible at trial, the prosecution must demonstrate that he "knowingly and voluntarily" waived his Miranda rights.
In recognizing a break-in-custody exception to Edwards and therefore finding that Shatzer's Miranda rights had not been violated, Justice Scalia's opinion for the majority reasoned that a suspect who has "returned to his normal life" between interrogation sessions does not remain "isolated" in a police-dominated setting and "has likely been able to seek advice" from others.
The officer found and removed a loaded handgun from a carton, formally placed the man under arrest, and then read the Miranda rights to him.
Nonetheless, I prefer this complex over the Miranda rights, which would mean that I would be accused in America these days, in that I, like every Arab and Muslim, would be guilty until proven innocent, and not vice versa.
Justice Kennedy, writing for a 5-4 majority, (20) held that "a suspect who has received and understood the Miranda warnings, and has not invoked his Miranda rights, waives the right to remain silent by making an uncoerced statement to the police.