Miranda Warning

The Miranda Warning is given by police officers of the United States to suspects who they have arrested and intend to question. The Miranda Rights were mandated by the 1966 United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Miranda v. Arizona. The Miranda Warning is a means of protecting a criminal suspect's Fifth Amendment right not to be subjected to coerced self-incrimination. This principle of law, though under different names, has been adopted in some other jurisdictions that derive their legal systems from English common law.

Miranda v. Arizona

Main article: Miranda v. Arizona

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 (Miranda v. Arizona 384 US 436 June 13, 1966) that Miranda was intimidated by the interrogation and that he understood neither his right 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.

Miranda rights

The Supreme Court did not specify the exact wording to be used when informing a suspect of his or her rights. However, they did set down a set of guidelines which must be followed. The ruling states:

"...The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a attorney and to have that attorney present during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent him."

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.

Typical Miranda warning

Though every U.S. jurisdiction has its own regulations regarding what, precisely, must be said to a person when they are arrested, the typical warning is as follows:

You have the right to remain silent. If you give up that right, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney and to have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to you at no cost.

The courts have since ruled that the warning must be "meaningful", so it is usually required that the suspect be asked if he understands his rights. Evidence has been ruled inadmissible because of a arrestee's poor knowledge of English and the failure of arresting officers to provide the warning in the arrestee's language.

Confusion regarding the Miranda warning

Due to the prevalence of American TV criminal justice, civil rights, arrest