Freedom News- Miranda Rights- History- Supreme Court Ruling- Politics- Report

Sierra White Reporting

The Miranda Warning or Miranda Rights have been around for decades. Anyone who has ever been arrested knows what they are and most Americans watch enough cable television to know what they are.www.expertlaw.com, “The police must advise suspects of their “Miranda Rights” – their right to remain silent, their right to an attorney, and the right to an appointed attorney if they are unable to afford counsel – prior to conducting a custodial interrogation. If a suspect is not in police custody (i.e., “under arrest”), the police do not have to warn him of his rights.”

According to

If you watch Cop TV Shows like 24, COPS, or CSI then you have probably heard the Miranda Rights before,

“You have the right to remain silent…”

In 1964 in the case of Excobedo vs Illinois, it was determind that a suspect has a right to “counsel” or an attoney being present before, during or after questioning if police had intentions of using and information given to them against the suspect during trial.

In 1966, in the case of Miranda vs Arizona, Ernesto Miranda had been under trial for robbery, kidnapping and rape. It was through this trial that the Miranda Rights or Miranda Warning was given its name. It was also through this trial that suspects must be informed of their legal rights when placed under arrest.

In 1968, the final text of the Miranda Warning was added by California, Deputy General Doris Maier and Attorney Harold Berliner. It was added that the Miranda Warning was in place to protect a suspects legal rights by clearly, explaining the suspects options. The Miranda Rights also upheld police authoirty when they recited the Miranda Warning to the suspect and get a clear, intelligent answer that the suspect understands his/her rights as explained.

During questioning if a suspect verbally or physically shows that they have decided to remain silent and not answer then police must cease questioning immediately until the suspects attorney (or the one appointed to them) is there. The suspect has the right to speak with his/her attorney before continuing questioning and the suspect has the right to have their attory present for the duration of the interrogation.

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 an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?”

In a case in Michigan, a suspect spoke one word in a 3 hour period which caused the police to assume he waived his right to remain silent. The suspect had been read his rights and endured a 3 hour interrogation. He had not signed any papers saying whether or not he waived his right to remain silent and he never verbally agreed or disagreed.

During the interrogation he was asked if he believed that God would forgive him for shooting his victim and the suspect said, “Yes”. This one word, verbally was a “sign” that the suspect waived his right to remain silent and now this may be used against him in a court of law.

“Thompkins did not say that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk to police,”Justice Kennedy said. “Had he made either of these simple, unambiguous statements, he would have invoked his ‘right to cut off questioning.’ Here he did neither, so he did not invoke his right to remain silent.” “Today’s decision turns Miranda upside down,”said Justice Sotomayor, “Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent — which, counter-intuitively, requires them to speak. At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so.”

On June 1, 2010 the Supreme Court made a change to the Miranda Rights, ruling that a suspect must verbally make a commitment to the 5th Amendment. Suspects can no longer use body language ro signs to show their “right to remain silent”, they must now verbally say so.

In a a final statement on June 1, 2010 Justice Sonia Sotoma stated,

“Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent – which counter-intuitively, requires them to speak,”she said.”At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so. Those results, in my view, find no basis in Miranda or our subsequent cases and are inconsistent with the fair-trial principles on which those precedents are grounded.”

What is your opinion?  Share it with us at flag@freedomist.com