Miranda Rights

Miranda Rights

Miranda Rights

Americans have long had the Constitutional right to remain silent, to retain legal counsel and to have an attorney present during police questioning. In 1966, however, things changed dramatically in regard to law enforcement's duty to inform a suspect or arrested of these rights. It all started in 1963 when Ernesto Miranda confessed to the kidnapping and rape of an 18-year-old woman. He confessed after in questioning session, but he was not informed of his right to remain silent and his right to have a lawyer present during questioning. During his trial, Miranda's attorney tried to have his confession avoided based on his lack of knowledge of his rights, but the motion was denied. The case was then brought before the Supreme Court in 1966, where it was found that Miranda's statements during questioning could not be used against him as evidence in the case, as he had not been advised of his rights (Leo & Lhomas, 1998).

Though Miranda was tried again with his confession excluded from the evidence, he was still found guilty. The police had sufficient evidence other than his statements during questioning. Though the outcome was not what Miranda and his attorney had hoped, it did change police procedures. Since the 1966 Supreme Court ruling in Miranda Vs Arizona, the police is required to inform a person of his or her rights prior to beginning any pertinent questioning. This statement is typically called a Miranda warning and the rights it covers as one's Miranda rights. Though the wordings of the Miranda Rights may vary depending on the jurisdiction, the following is a standard Miranda warning in its most basic form:

“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the ...