Miranda warning


Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Wikipedia.

Miranda warning( Miranda rule, 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 ?
(118.) See Charlie Savage, Delayed Miranda Warning Ordered for
Therefore, Quarles established that the public safety exception seems to apply to anything a defendant said before being given Miranda warnings, whether or not those admissions were related to the public safety issue.
Miranda warnings and whether the suspect had waived his rights was much
Also factoring into her waiver was the fact that before either Officer Reinesch or Soto read Diaz her Miranda rights, another officer, Russell, told her that the police were just going to "visit" and "talk[]" with her to see if she "remember[ed] things." (209) When her rights were read in English, Reinesch told Diaz that her Miranda warning was "Not a big deal at all." (210) He also described the warning as "protocol" and told Diaz "we'll getcha takin' care of." (211) After receiving a Miranda warning in English, Diaz's multiple responses to Reinesch indicated that she did not understand her rights.
In the first section, the Court noted Miranda's right to counsel is sufficiently important to criminal suspects in that it "requir[es] the special protection of the knowing and intelligent waiver standard." (40) The Court reiterated that "[i]f the suspect effectively waives his right to counsel after receiving the Miranda warnings, law enforcement officers are free to question him." (41) Further, "if a suspect requests counsel at any time during the interview, he is not subject to further questioning until a lawyer has been made available or the suspect himself reinitiates conversation." (42)
(37) Agreeing that perhaps the suspect was not in custody, Justice Marshall, in dissent, nevertheless cogently pointed out that the circumstances resembled the "coercive aspects of custodial interrogation." (38) Likewise, Justice Stevens maintained that the Miranda warnings were inapposite in the "parole context." (39) More important for our purposes, Justice Marshall emphasized the obvious: The police subjected Mathiason to the same "deceptive stratagems" that prompted Miranda and that the opinion decried.
(144) The first Miranda warning provides that the suspect has a right to remain silent.
The crux of the Miranda warning is that "anything you say will be used against you" (Korwin always italicizes that last, very important bit).
The legal name for the above is "the Miranda Warning" or "Miranda rights".
Arizona case that led to the well-known Miranda Warning.