Miranda rule


Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Wikipedia.
Related to Miranda rule: Mirandize, Miranda warning, Miranda law

Miranda rule (Miranda warning, Miranda rights)

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 ?
Although the Miranda rule was specifically designed by the Court to counter the interrogation techniques that the police had developed to bypass the involuntariness doctrine, (256) the decades since Miranda's issuance have produced numerous examples of state and federal police departments adapting to Miranda by employing a variety of ploys and devices that sidestep Miranda's protections.
While it can be doctrinally unsatisfying and even incoherent at times, this pragmatic approach basically maintains the essential core structure of the Miranda rules and exceptions as the police have come to know them, while being wary of deliberate efforts to circumvent them.
Although the two justices concurring in judgment agreed with the majority that the rationale of both Elstad and Tucker is even more applicable in this case, they found it "unnecessary to decide whether the detective's failure to give Patane his full Miranda warnings should be characterized as a violation of the Miranda rule itself, or whether there is 'anything to deter' so long as the unwarned statements are not later introduced at trial, Id.
Once this pragmatic basis is recognized, the fact that "subsequent cases have reduced the impact of Miranda on legitimate law enforcement,"(27) and the further fact that it never did seem to have that much of an impact on the ability of police to get confessions, become sound reasons for maintaining the Miranda rule rather than questioning its constitutional validity.
concurring) (stating that the overbreadth of the Miranda rule can be defended on the ground that it facilitates "efficient judicial administration of the Fifth Amendment guarantee"); Berkemer, 468 U.
While Miranda rules ban any questioning after the suspect has invoked his rights, the courts give police great leeway in the tactics that can be used once the suspect waives them.
249) Both Seibert and Elstad also emphasized that the concerns underlying the Miranda rule must be accommodated to law enforcement interests, (250) including the admissibility of reliable evidence, and other objectives of the criminal justice system.
The Miranda rule should be enforced every time someone is interrogated by police, including in prison.
20) Thus, 'if anything, our subsequent cases have reduced the impact of the Miranda rule on legitimate law enforcement while reaffirming the decision's core ruling that unwarned statements may not be used as evidence in the prosecution's case in chief.
in Dickerson "saved" the Miranda rule, it did not touch the
The court's majority has eroded the Miranda rule, significantly weakening protections for criminal suspects.