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 ?
It applies only when there is a continued threat to public safety and is not an open-ended exception to the Miranda rule.
630, 636-37 (2004) (plurality opinion) (contending that the Miranda rule is mere prophylaxis); Kit Kinports, The Supreme Court's Love-Hate Relationship with Miranda, 101 J.
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.
58) In deciding that "Congress may not legislatively supersede our decisions interpreting and applying the Constitution," (59) the Court held that the Miranda rule was not a mere prophylaxis against constitutional violations but was itself a constitutional rue.
183) The Supreme Court disagreed, stating, "[T]he Miranda rule protects against violations of the Self-Incrimination Clause, which in turn, is not implicated by the introduction at trial of physical evidence resulting from voluntary statements.
It was also that the Court's Republican majority, in place since 1972, had so watered down the case's requirements as to reduce "the impact of the Miranda rule on legitimate law enforcement while reaffirming the decision's core ruling.
decided in the last term, the Court upheld the Miranda rule requiring that all criminal suspects be informed of their rights.
The Miranda rule is quite specific, while the Shaw rule is not.
The value of recording interrogations is one point on which the Washington Legal Foundation's Cassell and UC-Irvine's Leo agree, despite holding radically different views on issues from the Miranda rule to the frequency of wrongful convictions.
S 899 looks at procedural and judicial reforms including the Miranda rule as well as victims' rights issues.
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.