 |
| Criminal procedure |
|---|
| Investigating and charging crimes |
| Criminal investigation |
|
Arrest warrant · Search warrant |
| Criminal prosecution |
|
Statute of limitations · Nolle prosequi |
| Charges and pleas |
|
Arraignment · Information · Indictment |
| Related areas of law |
|
Criminal defenses |
| Portals |
|
Law · Criminal justice |
In the United States, the Miranda warning is a warning given by police to criminal suspects in police custody, or in a custodial situation, before they are asked questions relating to the commission of a crime. A plea bargain (also plea agreement, plea deal or copping a plea) is an agreement in a Criminal case whereby the Prosecutor offers A presentence investigation report ( PSI) is a Legal term referring to the investigation into the history of person convicted of a crime before sentencing to determine The term criminal law, sometimes called penal law, refers to any of various bodies of rules in different Jurisdictions whose common characteristic is the potential The Law of evidence governs the use of Testimony (eg oral or written statements such as an Affidavit) and exhibits (e Civil procedure is the body of law that sets out the process that Courts will follow when hearing cases of a civil nature (a " Civil action " as opposed to The United States of America —commonly referred to as the Police are agents or agencies usually of the executive, empowered to enforce the law and to effect public and social order through the legitimatized use of force In the Parlance of Criminal justice, a suspect is a known person suspected of committing a Crime. A custodial situation is where the suspect's freedom of movement is restrained although he or she is not under arrest. An incriminating statement by a suspect will not constitute admissible evidence unless the suspect was advised of his or her "Miranda rights" and made a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of those rights. Admissible evidence, in a Court of Law, is any testimonial documentary or tangible evidence that may be introduced to a factfinder--usually a Judge However, police may request biographical information such as name, date of birth, and address, without first reading suspects their Miranda warnings.
The Miranda warnings were mandated by the 1966 United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Miranda v. Arizona as a means of protecting a criminal suspect's Fifth Amendment right to avoid coercive self-incrimination (see right to silence). Year 1966 ( MCMLXVI) was a Common year starting on Saturday (link will display full calendar of the 1966 Gregorian calendar. The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest judicial body in the United States and leads the federal judiciary. Miranda v Arizona (consolidated with Westover v United States, Vignera v The Fifth Amendment ( Amendment V) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, is related to legal procedure Self-incrimination is the act of accusing oneself of a Crime for which a person can then be Prosecuted. The right to remain silent is a legal protection given to people undergoing police Interrogation or trial.
Contents |
Miranda v. Arizona
In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and rape of a Jane Doe at a bus stop. Miranda v Arizona (consolidated with Westover v United States, Vignera v Ernesto Arturo Miranda ( March 9, 1941 – January 31, 1976) was a laborer whose conviction on kidnapping rape and armed robbery charges In Criminal law, kidnapping is the taking away or Asportation of a person against the person's will usually to hold the person in False imprisonment Rape, also referred to as Sexual assault, is an Assault by a person involving Sexual intercourse with or Sexual penetration of another person He made a confession without having been told of his constitutional right to remain silent, and his right to have an attorney present during police questioning. At trial, prosecutors offered only his confession as evidence and he was convicted. The prosecutor is the chief legal representative of the prosecution in countries with either the Common law Adversarial system, or the civil law In Law, a conviction is the Verdict that results when a Court of law finds a Defendant guilty of a Crime. The Supreme Court ruled (Miranda v. Arizona, ) that Miranda was intimidated by the interrogation and that he did not understand his right not to incriminate himself or his right to counsel. Miranda v Arizona (consolidated with Westover v United States, Vignera v On this basis, they overturned his conviction. Miranda was later convicted in a new trial, with witnesses testifying against him and other evidence presented. He was then sentenced to eleven years. He served one-third of his sentence and was turned down for parole four times before being paroled in December 1972.
When Miranda was later killed in a knife fight, his killer received the Miranda warnings; he invoked his rights and declined to give a statement. [1] At the time of his death, Miranda had several business card sized copies of the Miranda statement in his pocket.
In 2000, the Supreme Court confronted the issue of whether Miranda had been superseded by the enactment of the Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. A 7-2 majority ruled that the answer was no, because Miranda had articulated a constitutional rule which only the Court itself (or a constitutional amendment) could reverse. Dickerson v. United States, . Dickerson v United States,, upheld the requirement that the Miranda warning be read to criminal suspects and struck down a federal statute that
Miranda rights
The Supreme Court did not specify the exact wording to be used when informing a suspect of his or her rights. However, the Court did create a set of guidelines which must be followed. The ruling states:
| “ | . . . The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he or she has the right to remain silent, and that anything the person says may be used against that person in court; the person must be clearly informed that he or she has the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present during questioning, and that, if he or she is indigent, an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent him or her. The right to remain silent is a legal protection given to people undergoing police Interrogation or trial. A court is a forum used by a power base to adjudicate disputes and dispense civil, labour administrative and criminal Justice under its A lawyer, according to Black's Law Dictionary, is "a person learned in the law as an attorney, Counsel or Solicitor; a person Poverty (also called penury) is deprivation of common necessities that determine the quality of life including food clothing shelter and safe Drinking water, and | ” |
As a result, American English developed the verb Mirandize, meaning "to read to a suspect his or her Miranda rights" (when the suspect is arrested). Phonology North American English regional phonology In many ways compared to English English, North American English is conservative in its Phonology. For English usage of verbs see the wiki article English verbs. [2]
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 decision, as long as they are adequately and fully conveyed. California v. Prysock, .
Typical usage
Though every U. S. jurisdiction has its own regulations regarding what, precisely, must be said to a person when they are arrested or placed in a custodial situation, the typical warning is as follows:
| “ | 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 right to have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. | ” |
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. Sometimes, firm answers of "yes" are required. An arrestee's silence is not a waiver. Evidence has been ruled inadmissible because of an arrestee's poor knowledge of English and the failure of arresting officers to provide the warning in the arrestee's language.
Also because of various education levels, officers must make sure the suspect understands what the officer is saying. It may be necessary to "translate" to the suspect's level of understanding. Courts have ruled this admissible as long as the original waiver is said and the "translation" is recorded either on paper or on tape.
The right of a juvenile to remain silent without his or her parent or guardian present is provided in some jurisdictions.
Some departments in New Jersey, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Alaska modify the "providing an attorney" clause as follows:
| “ | We have no way of giving you a lawyer, but one will be appointed for you, if you wish, if and when you go to court. New Jersey ( is a state in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern regions of the United States. Nevada ( is a state located in the western region of the United States of America. Oklahoma ( is a state located in the South Central region of the United States of America. Alaska ( Аляска Alyaska) is a state in the United States of America, in the northwest of the North American continent | ” |
Even though this sentence can be somewhat ambiguous to some hapless laypersons — who can, and who have, interpreted it to mean that "you will not get a lawyer until you confess and are arraigned in court" — the U. S. Supreme Court has approved of it as an accurate description of the procedure in those states. Duckworth v. Eagan, (upholding use of sentence by Hammond, Indiana police). Hammond (ˈhæmənd is a city in Lake County, Indiana, United States.
In border states, including Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, suspects who are not United States citizens are given an additional warning:
| “ | If you are not a United States citizen, you may contact your country's consulate prior to any questioning. Texas ( is a state geographically located in the South Central United States and is also known as the Lone Star State. New Mexico ( is a state located in the southwestern region of the United States of America. The State of Arizona ( is a state located in the southwestern region of the United States. California ( is a US state on the West Coast of the United States, along the Pacific Ocean. | ” |
Some states including Virginia require the following sentence, ensuring that the suspect knows that waiving Miranda rights is not a one-time absolute occurrence:
| “ | You can decide at any time from this moment on to terminate the interview and exercise these rights. The Commonwealth of Virginia ( is an American state | ” |
California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, North Carolina, Virginia and Pennsylvania also add the following questions :
| “ | Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me? | ” |
Some departments and jurisdictions require that an officer ask "do you understand?" after every sentence in the warning. California ( is a US state on the West Coast of the United States, along the Pacific Ocean. Texas ( is a state geographically located in the South Central United States and is also known as the Lone Star State. New York ( is a state in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern regions of the United States and is the nation's third most populous Florida ( is a state located in the southeastern region of the United States, bordering Alabama to the northwest and Georgia to the The State of Illinois ( roughly ill-i-NOY is a state of the United States of America, the 21st to be admitted to the Union. North Carolina ( is a state located on the Atlantic Seaboard in the southeastern United States The Commonwealth of Virginia ( is an American state The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ( often colloquially referred to as PA (its abbreviation by natives and Northeasterners is a state located in the Northeastern An affirmative answer to both of the above questions waives the rights. If the suspect indicates that they do not understand, the officer is required to re-read the Miranda warning, while saying "no" to the second question invokes the right at that moment; in either case the interviewing officer or officers cannot question the suspect until the rights are waived.
Generally, when defendants invoke their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and refuse to testify or submit to cross-examination at trial, the prosecutor cannot punish them by commenting on their silence and insinuating that it is an implicit admission of guilt. Griffin v. California, . Since Miranda rights are simply an extension of the Fifth Amendment which protects against coercive interrogations, the same rule also prevents prosecutors from commenting about the postarrest silence of suspects who invoke their Miranda rights immediately after arrest. Wainwright v. Greenfield, . Wainwright v Greenfield, 474 US 284 ( 1986) is a case in which the United States Supreme Court reversed the lower court's finding overturning However, neither the Fifth Amendment nor Miranda extend to prearrest silence, so if a defendant takes the stand at trial (thereby waiving his Fifth Amendment rights), the prosecutor can attack his credibility with his prearrest silence (where he failed to turn himself in and confess immediately). Jenkins v. Anderson, . Jenkins v Anderson, 447 US 231 ( 1980) is a United States Supreme Court case regarding the Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate oneself
Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 31 provides for the right against self-incrimination. The Uniform Code of Military Justice ( UCMJ,,) is the foundation of Military law in the United States. Interrogation subjects under Army jurisdiction must first be given Department of the Army Form 3881(PDF), which informs them of the charges and their rights, and sign it. The United States Navy and United States Marine Corps require that all arrested personnel be read the "rights of the accused" and must sign a form waiving those rights if they so desire, a verbal waiver is not sufficient.
It has been discussed if a Miranda warning — if spoken or in writing — could be appropriately given to disabled persons. For example, "the right to remain silent" means little to a deaf individual and the word "constitutional" may not be understood by people with only an elementary education. The content of a Miranda warning can be understood by a 6th- to 8th-grade pupil while only 10 to 15 percent of prelingually deaf people have been found to be that competent, due to the linguistic and cultural differences between the Deaf and Hearing communities. In one case, a deaf murderer was kept at a therapy station until he was able to understand the meaning of the Miranda warning and other judicial proceedings. [3]
Confusion regarding use
Due to the prevalence of American television programs and motion pictures in which the police characters frequently read suspects their rights, it has become an expected element of arrest procedure. A television program (US television programme (UK or television show (U In the 2000 Dickerson decision, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote that Miranda warnings had "become embedded in routine police practice to the point where the warnings have become part of our national culture. 2000 ( MM) was a Leap year that started on Saturday of the Common Era, in accordance with the Gregorian calendar. William Hubbs Rehnquist (October 1 1924 – September 3 2005 was an American lawyer, jurist, and a political figure who served as an Associate Justice " Dickerson v. United States . Dickerson v United States,, upheld the requirement that the Miranda warning be read to criminal suspects and struck down a federal statute that However, police are only required to warn an individual whom they intend to subject to custodial interrogation at the police station, in a police vehicle or when detained. Arrests can occur without questioning and without the Miranda warning — although if the police do change their mind and decide to interrogate the suspect, the warning must then be given.
In some jurisdictions, a detention differs at law from an arrest, and police are not required to give the Miranda warning until the person is arrested for a crime. In those situations, a person's statements made to police are generally admissible even though the person was not advised of their rights. Similarly, statements made while an arrest is in progress before the Miranda warning was given or completed are also generally admissible.
Because Miranda only applies to custodial interrogations, it does not protect detainees from standard booking questions: name, date of birth, address, and the like. Because it is a prophylactic measure intended to safeguard the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, it does not prevent the police from taking blood from persons suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol without a warrant. Drunk driving is the act of operating and/or driving a Motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and/or Drugs to the degree that mental and (Such inspections may be incriminatory but not self-incriminatory for a suspect).
If an inmate is in jail and invoked Miranda on one case, it is unclear whether this extends to any other cases that he or she may be charged with while in custody.
Many police departments give special training to interrogators with regard to the Miranda warning; specifically, how to influence a suspect's decision to waive the right. For instance, the officer may be required to specifically ask if the rights are understood and if the suspect wishes to talk. The officer is allowed, before asking the suspect a question, to speak at length about evidence collected, witness statements, etc. The officer will THEN ask if the suspect wishes to talk, and the suspect is then more likely to do to in an attempt to refute the evidence presented. Another tactic commonly taught is to never ask a question; the officer may simply sit the suspect down in an interrogation room, sit across from him and do paperwork, and wait for the suspect to begin talking. [4] These tactics are intended to mitigate the restrictions placed on law officers against compelling a suspect to give evidence, and have stood up in court as valid lawful tactics. Nevertheless, such tactics are condemned by legal rights groups as deceptive.
Equivalent rights in other countries
Australia
Within Australia, the right to silence derives from common law. For a topic outline on this subject see List of basic Australia topics. Common law refers to law and the corresponding legal system developed through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive The uniform position amongst the states is that neither the judge nor the jury is permitted to draw any adverse inference about the defendant's culpability, where he/she does not answer police questions. Adverse inference is a legal inference adverse to the concerned party drawn from silence or absence of requested evidence. While this is the common law position, it is buttressed by various legislative provisions within the states. For instance s. 464J of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) and s. 89 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).
It has also been upheld by the High Court in the case of Petty v R (1991) 173 CLR 95. The High Court of Australia is the final court of appeal in Australia the highest court in the Australian court hierarchy. However, where a defendant answers some police questions, but not others, an inference may sometimes be drawn about the questions he refused to answer. (See Coldrey, below. )
The current caution used in New South Wales is:
| “ | You are not obliged to say or do anything unless you wish to do so, but whatever you say or do may be used in evidence. Do you understand? | ” |
Where a defendant refuses to speak to the police, but then speaks to an undercover member of the police, that evidence is likely to be excluded so as to ensure that the police do not avoid their limitations. However, if a defendant speaks to a person who is not a member of the police and who is fitted with a listening device, that evidence would be admitted.
Australian research indicates that very few suspects actually refuse to speak. Stevenson's research (see below for citation) indicates that only 4% of suspects who are subsequently charged and tried in the District Court of New South Wales in Sydney remain silent during interviews. The District Court of New South Wales has jurisdiction to hear most indictable offences (except Murder and Treason) Sydney (ˈsɪdniː is the most populous city in Australia, with a Metropolitan area population of approximately 4 The Victorian DPP found that 7-9% of suspects refused to answer police questions. The Director of Public Prosecutions is the officer charged with the prosecution of criminal offences in several Criminal jurisdictions around the world
A number of states have conducted Enquiries into the adoption of the English changes set out in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. See here, here or here All states have rejected such change. As the NSW Report said:
| “ | It is reasonable that innocent persons faced with a serious accusation might wish to consider their situations carefully before making any disclosure, especially where the circumstances appear suspicious but it cannot be assumed that they are rational and articulate. In many cases, suspects may be emotional, perhaps panicked, inarticulate, unintelligent, easily influenced, confused or frightened or a combination of these. They may be unable to do themselves justice. Such persons may be well advised to hold their peace, at least at an early stage. They may, of course, have something to hide, but that something may simply be shameful and not a crime, or it may implicate others for whom they feel responsible. The supposition that only a guilty person has a reason for not speaking freely to investigating police is an unreasonable assumption. | ” |
It is also important to note that anything said to an Australian police member should be corroborated, especially by way of video or audio tape. If it is not so corroborated it will be admitted only under exceptional circumstances, S. 464H (2)(a) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), and where the circumstances, on the balance of probabilities, justify the reception of the evidence, S. 464H (2)(b) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic). While initially the police were insulted by this ruling most have now come to find it useful as a way of proving that they did not invent a false, verbal confession, never made by an accused (a practice called "verballing" an accused).
Canada
In Canada, equivalent rights exist pursuant to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Country to "Dominion of Canada" or "Canadian Federation" or anything else please read the Talk Page The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (also known as The Charter of Rights and Freedoms or simply the Charter) is a Bill of rights entrenched in the Under the Charter, an arrested person has the right:
- to be informed promptly of the reasons therefore
- to retain and instruct counsel without delay and be informed of that right
- to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful
A typical Canadian "Charter" warning reads (varies by police service): "You are under arrest for _________ (charge), do you understand? You have the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay. Habeas corpus (ˈheɪbiəs ˈkɔɹpəs ( Latin: command that you have the body is the name of a legal action or Writ, through which a person can seek relief We will provide you with a toll-free telephone lawyer referral service, if you do not have your own lawyer. Anything you say can be used in court as evidence. Do you understand? Would you like to speak to a lawyer?"
(See: R. v. Hebert [1990] 2 S. R v Hebert 2 SCR 151 is the leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on an accused's Right to silence under section seven of the Canadian C. R. 15)
Section 11 of the Charter further provides that a person cannot be compelled to be a witness in a proceeding against them (s. 11(c) - protection against self-incrimination) and is presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal (s. 11(d)). Section 14 of the Charter further provides that a translator must be made available so that the person can understand the proceedings against them. This right to a translator extends to the deaf.
While Section 7 of the Charter guarantees the right to remain silent, Canadian law does not entitle the criminal suspect to have counsel present during the course of an interrogation. Once a suspect has asserted their right to counsel, the police are obliged to hold off in attempting to obtain evidence until the suspect has had a reasonable opportunity to contact legal counsel, however suspects do not have the right to have counsel present during the questioning.
England and Wales
- See also: Right to silence in England and Wales
Warnings regarding the right against self-incrimination may have originated in England and Wales. The Right to silence in England and Wales is the term used to describe the protection given to a person during Criminal proceedings from adverse History The Roman occupation of Britain was the first period in which the area of present-day England and Wales was administered as a single unit (with the exception In 1912, the judges of the Kings Bench issued the Judges Rules. The Queen's Bench (or during the reign of a male monarch the King's Bench) is the superior court in a number of jurisdictions within some of the Commonwealth realms The Judges' Rules were first issued in 1912 by the judges of the King's Bench to give English Police forces guidance on the procedures that they should follow These provided that, when a police member wished to question a suspect about an offence, the officer should first caution the person that he was entitled to remain silent. The pre-trial operation of the privilege against self-incrimination was further buttressed by the decision in Ibrahim v R [1914] AC 599 that an admission or confession made by the accused to the police would only be admissible in evidence if the prosecution could establish that it had been voluntary. An admission or confession is only voluntary if made in the exercise of a free choice about whether to speak or remain silent:
In R v Leckey (1943) CAR 128 the Court of Criminal Appeal said:
| “ | . . . an innocent person might well, either from excessive caution or for some other reason, decline to say anything when charged and cautioned, and if it were possible to hold that out to a jury as a ground on which they might find a man guilty, it is obvious that innocent persons might be in great peril. | ” |
Therefore a caution of the form
- You have the right to remain silent, but anything you do say will be taken down and may be used in evidence against you.
was used. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 amended the right to silence by allowing adverse inferences to be drawn by the jury in cases where a suspect refuses to explain something, and then later produces an explanation (see right to silence in England and Wales). The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 was an Act of Parliament brought into law by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The right to remain silent is a legal protection given to people undergoing police Interrogation or trial. The Right to silence in England and Wales is the term used to describe the protection given to a person during Criminal proceedings from adverse In other words the jury is entitled to infer that the accused fabricated the explanation at a later date, as he refused to provide the explanation during police questioning. The jury is also free to make no such inference. The new caution is:
- You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.
or
- You do not have to say anything unless you wish to do so, but I must warn you that if you fail to mention any fact which you rely on in your defence in court, your failure to take this opportunity to mention it may be treated in court as supporting any relevant evidence against you. If you do wish to say anything, what you say may be given in evidence.
or even (in circumstances where no adverse inference can be drawn from silence)
- You do not have to say anything, but anything you do say may be given in evidence.
The caution in England and Wales does not explicitly require that a suspect affirms that he or she understands the caution. History The Roman occupation of Britain was the first period in which the area of present-day England and Wales was administered as a single unit (with the exception . In addition the caution need not be explicitly stated if it is obvious that the suspect is already aware of his rights, for example if he is a police officer, as long as the suspect is definitely aware that he is under caution.
France
In France, any person brought in police custody (garde à vue) must be informed of the maximal duration of the custody, and a number of rights, in a language that this person understands. This article is about the country For a topic outline on this subject see List of basic France topics. Among these rights are: the possibility of warning a relative or employer of the custody, that of asking to be examined by a physician, that of discussing the case with an attorney. A physician, medical practitioner or medical doctor who practices Medicine, and is concerned with maintaining or restoring human Health An attorney at law (or attorney-at-law) in the United States is a practitioner in a court of law who is legally qualified to prosecute Witnesses against whom there exist indictments (or who are cited as suspects) cannot be heard under oath, and thus do not risk prosecution for perjury. Perjury, also known as forswearing, is the act of lying or making verifiably false statements on a material matter under Oath or Affirmation in a Such witnesses must be assisted by an attorney, and must be informed of these rights when heard by the judiciary. An attorney at law (or attorney-at-law) in the United States is a practitioner in a court of law who is legally qualified to prosecute Suspects (any person against whom exist plausible causes of suspicion) must be informed of their right to remain silent, to make statements, or to answer questions. In all cases, an attorney can be designated by the head of the bar if necessary. A bar association is a Professional body of Lawyers Some bar associations are responsible for the regulation of the legal profession in their Jurisdiction
Germany
According to § 136 StPO (Strafprozessordnung = Criminal Procedure Code) a suspect, arrested or not, has to be informed before any interrogation:
- about which crime he is charged
- about his right to remain silent
- about his right to question an attorney before the interview
- about his right to name any evidence in his favour to be obtained
It is not allowed to draw any inference from the complete silence of the accused in any stage of the criminal proceedings. However, it is allowed to draw conclusions if the accused remains silent only to certain questions about the same crime.
Foreign suspects have the following additional rights:
- translation assistance
- consular assistance
European Union
Within the European Union, a gradual process of harmonising the laws of individual countries has resulted in calls for a common letter of rights which would apply to all EU citizens. The European Union ( EU) is a political and economic union of twenty-seven member states, located primarily in [1] The proposed common standard would protect:
- access to legal advice;
- translation assistance as needed;
- protection for those unable to follow the proceedings; and
- consular assistance for foreign detainees
These would be contained in a "letter of rights" which would be a printed document to be given to suspects after they are detained and before interrogation[2]. The right to silence does not fall under the proposed common standard. The right to remain silent is a legal protection given to people undergoing police Interrogation or trial. This has been criticised on the grounds that the "letter of rights" would be one from which what some people consider to be the most important right is missing, and that this would be confusing for the accused rather than helpful. On the other hand, obstacles to its enactment include the anti-terrorism laws of certain EU members which conflict with these proposed rights.
Switzerland
Article 158 of the unified Swiss code of criminal procedure, which is to enter into force by 2010, establishes that the results of an interrogation may not be used unless the accused has been informed that
- he is the subject of a criminal investigation for some specific infractions,
- he has the right to remain silent and to not cooperate with police,
- he has the right to legal representation by a private or state-funded attorney, and
- he has the right to request the services of an interpreter. Switzerland (English pronunciation; Schweiz Swiss German: Schwyz or Schwiiz Suisse Svizzera Svizra officially the Swiss Confederation Criminal procedure refers to the legal process for adjudicating claims that someone has violated Criminal law.
The cantonal codes of procedure, which remain in force until 2010, generally contain similar provisions. The 26 cantons of Switzerland are the states of the Federal state of Switzerland.
References
General
- Coldrey, J. (1990) "The Right to Silence Reassessed" 74 Victorian Bar News 25.
- Coldrey, J. (1991) "The Right to Silence: Should it be curtailed or abolished?"` 20 Anglo-American Law Review 51.
- "Rehnquist's legacy" The Economist. The Economist is an English-language weekly news and International affairs publication owned by The Economist Newspaper Ltd and edited in London July 2nd-8th, 2005. p. 28.
- Stevenson, N. (1982) "Criminal Cases in the NSW District Court: A Pilot Study" In J. Basten, M. Richardson, C. Ronalds and G. Zdenkowski (eds), The Criminal Injustice System Sydney: Australian Legal Workers Group (NSW) and Legal Service Bulletin.
Specific
- ^ ASU News & Information from the Office of Media Relations and Public Information
- ^ "Mirandize". The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language. (2004). Houghton Mifflin Company. Retrieved on 2007-09-18. Year 2007 ( MMVII) was a Common year starting on Monday of the Gregorian calendar in the 21st century. Events 96 - Nerva is proclaimed Roman Emperor after Domitian is assassinated
- ^ "Deaf Murderers: Clinical and Forensic Issues", Behavioural Sciences and the Law 17: 495-516 (1999).
- ^ http://www.regent.edu/admin/media/schlaw/LawPreview/ Prof. James Duane and Officer George Bruch - Fifth Amendment Lecture at Regent University
See also
An arrest is the act of depriving a person of his or her liberty usually in relation to the investigation and prevention of crime Criminal justice is the system of practices and organizations used by national and local governments directed at maintaining Social control, deterring The right to remain silent is a legal protection given to people undergoing police Interrogation or trial.Dictionary
Miranda warning
-noun
- (US legal) A warning given to criminal suspects to advise them of certain of their constitutional rights, called their Miranda rights.
Dapyx Software network: MP3 Explorer | Ebook Manager | Zenithic