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 ?
At issue in Missouri v Seibert was a police interrogation practice that involved interrogating a suspect without Miranda warnings until a confession was obtained, and only then administering the warnings before re-interrogating the suspect on the same subject.
The three key factors, moreover, critical for a successful interrogation by the police were at play in the case: Mathiason was isolated, the officer was in control, and he was afforded neither the benefit of counsel nor the administration of the Miranda warnings before he confessed.
com ("[T]he Miranda warning that police read to suspects prior to interrogating them simply must be edited to include explicit instructions on what suspects must do to [invoke] their right to remain silent.
12) Despite language in prior Supreme Court decisions referring to Miranda warnings as "prophylactic" rules, "procedural safeguards associated with" the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, and "not themselves rights protected by the Constitution," (13) the seven Justices in the Dickerson majority concluded that Miranda was "a constitutional decision" that "may not be in effect overruled by an Act of Congress.
18) Importantly, the Court noted that Miranda warnings were not required by the Constitution, but were prophylactic measures designed to provide protection for the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
Until a few months ago, the above was everything I knew about the Miranda Warning or rights.
The Miranda Warning was, and still is, good law, even though the facts of the case were atrocious.
A Miranda warning must be provided when an individual is "in custody" and is being "interrogated.
It didn't matter to the majority that, as Justice Stevens wrote in his dissent, the questioning was close to torture, or that, without a blanket Miranda warning, it would seem impossible to sort out statements made under duress or without a Miranda warning.
the Miranda Warning will help determine whether a conduit execution is right for the borrower.
About the only time I have seen the Miranda warning in use is on TV and in movies.