Table of contents |
2 Miranda Rights 3 Confusion Regarding the Miranda Warning |
In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested for robbery, kidnapping, and rape. He was interrogated by police and confessed. At trial, prosecutors offered only his confession as evidence and he was convicted. The Supreme Court ruled that Miranda was intimidated by the interrogation and that he understood his right neither not to incriminate himself nor his right to have counsel. On this basis, they overturned his conviction. Miranda was retried, and this time the prosecutors did not use the confession but rather made use of witnesses and other evidence. Miranda was convicted, and served 11 years.
The Supreme Court did not specify the exact wording to be used when reading a suspect's rights. However, they did set down a set of guidelines which must be followed. The ruling states:
Due to the prevalence of American TV police dramas in which the police characters are constantly reading a suspect their rights, it has become an expected element of arrest procedure. However, police are only required to warn an individual whom they intend to question. Arrests can occur without questioning and without the Miranda Warning. Furthermore, if public safety warrants such action, the police may ask questions prior to a reading of the Miranda Warning.
Also, people outside the United States who have seen many American television programs sometimes expect to hear the Miranda warning when they are arrested, although US court rulings have no force outside the United States.
See also: criminal justiceMiranda v. Arizona
Miranda Rights
As a result, the American English vocabulary has acquired a new verb, "\'to mirandize'" meaning to read to a suspect, held in custody, his or her Miranda rights.Confusion Regarding the Miranda Warning