|
The ''Miranda'' warning, which can also be referred to as the ''Miranda'' ''rights'', is a right to silence warning given by police in the United States to criminal suspects in police custody (or in a custodial interrogation) before they are interrogated to preserve the admissibility of their statements against them in criminal proceedings. The ''Miranda'' warning is part of a preventive criminal procedure rule that law enforcement are required to administer to protect an individual who is in custody and subject to direct questioning or its functional equivalent from a violation of his or her Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination. In ''Miranda v. Arizona'', the Supreme Court held that the admission of an elicited incriminating statement by a suspect not informed of these rights violates the Fifth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, through the incorporation of these rights into state law. Thus, if law enforcement officials decline to offer a ''Miranda'' warning to an individual in their custody, they may interrogate that person and act upon the knowledge gained, but may not use that person's statements as evidence against him or her in a criminal trial.〔384 U.S. 436.〕 In ''Berghuis v. Thompkins'', the Supreme Court held that unless a suspect expressly states that he or she is invoking this right, subsequent voluntary statements made to an officer can be used against them in court, and police can continue to interact with (or question) the alleged criminal. ==History of Miranda rights== The concept of "''Miranda'' rights" was enshrined in U.S. law following the 1966 ''Miranda v. Arizona'' Supreme Court decision, which found that the Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights of Ernesto Arturo Miranda had been violated during his arrest and trial for armed robbery, kidnapping, and rape of a mentally handicapped young woman. (Miranda was subsequently retried and convicted.) The circumstances triggering the Miranda safeguards i.e. Miranda rights are "custody" and "interrogation". Custody means formal arrest or the deprivation of freedom to an extent associated with formal arrest. Interrogation means explicit questioning or actions that are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. The Supreme Court did not specify the exact wording to use when informing a suspect of his/her rights. However, the Court did create a set of guidelines that must be followed. The ruling states: As a result, American English developed the verb ''Mirandize'', meaning "read the ''Miranda'' rights to" a suspect (when the suspect is arrested). Notably, the ''Miranda'' rights do not have to be read in any particular order, and they do not have to precisely match the language of the ''Miranda'' case as long as they are adequately and fully conveyed. ''California v. Prysock'', .〔(California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355 (1981) ).〕 In ''Berkemer v. McCarty'' (1984) the Supreme Court decided that a person subjected to custodial interrogation is entitled to the benefit of the procedural safeguards enunciated in ''Miranda'', regardless of the nature or severity of the offense of which he is suspected or for which he was arrested.〔''Berkemer v. McCarty'', )〕 On June 1, 2010, in deciding the ''Berghuis v. Thompkins'' case, the United States Supreme Court declared that criminal defendant/defendants who have been read the Miranda rights (and who have indicated they understand them and have not already waived them), must explicitly state during or before an interrogation begins that they wish to be silent and not speak to police for that protection against self-incrimination to apply. If they speak to police about the incident before invoking the Miranda right to remain silent, or afterwards at any point during the interrogation or detention, the words they speak may be used against them if they have not stated they do not want to speak to police. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote the opinion and was joined by Justices Scalia, Alito, and Thomas and by Chief Justice Roberts. Justices Sotomayor, Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer dissented. Elena Kagan, who had presented the government's case as Solicitor General of the U.S. and who was nominated to succeed Justice Stevens, supported Kennedy's ruling in her arguments that pointed out that the ruling spelled out for prosecutors and defendants just how the right against self-incrimination applies in such cases. Those who oppose the ruling contend that the requirement that the defendant must speak to indicate his intention to remain silent further erodes the ability of the defendant to stay completely silent about the case. This opposition must be put in context with the second option offered by the majority opinion, which allowed that the defendant had the option of remaining silent, saying: "Had he wanted to remain silent, he could have said nothing in response or unambiguously invoked his Miranda rights, ending the interrogation." Thus, having been "Mirandized", a suspect may avow explicitly the invocation of these rights, or, alternatively, simply remain silent. Absent the former, "anything () can and will be used against (defendant ) in a court of law". 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Miranda warning」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|