0
1. You have the right to remain silent. Anything that you say can and will be used against you inthe court of law; 2. You have a right ot consult with an attorney and/or have one present when questioned by the police; 3. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to represent you..
Wiki User
∙ 16y ago
Wiki User
∙ 10y agoThere are 5 statements to the Miranda warning, they are
1. You have the right to remain silent.
2. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.
3. You have the right to talk to a lawyer and have him present with you while you are being questioned.
4. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you before any questioning, if you wish.
5. You can decide at any time to exercise these rights and not answer any questions or make any statements.
You must also ask if they have understood these rights.Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What Supreme Court case stated that suspects need to be advised of their constitutional rights when they are arrested?
There is no requirement to advise arrested persons of their rights. The trigger for advice or rights under Miranda V Arizona is 'custodial interrogation'. A person arrested but not questioned is usually not advised of rights, but a person who is being questioned and is not free to leave, whether or not they are arrested must be advised.
What was the number of votes in the Miranda vs Arizona decision?
There were two trials, both titled State of Arizona v. Ernesto Miranda. Miranda was convicted at trial and on retrial and appealed both sets of convictions under the title Miranda v. Arizona; the case never went to trial under that name.In the appeal of the first trial, the US Supreme Court held that Miranda's constitutional rights had been violated, resulting in the first conviction being vacated and the case being remanded for retrial with Miranda's confession excluded as evidence.Miranda was subsequently convicted at his second trial. The decision was affirmed by the Arizona Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court denied certiorari for his second petition, making the Arizona Supreme Court decision final.
What gaurantees that a person will be informed of there rights when placed under arrest?
The supreme court case Miranda vs Arizona.
What is the definition of Miranda rights?
Miranda rights are the rights that all Americans have that are relevant to suspects in investigations. They must be read as a suspect is taken into custody. They include the right to remain silent, and the right to an attorney.Note that there is no such thing as "Miranda Rights". The actual thing in question is termed a "Miranda Warning", since what is happening is a notification of your (already existing) Constitution Rights (under the 5th and 6th Amendments). What the Miranda v Arizona case defined was that police are required to inform you of your 5th and 6th Amendment Rights during questioning after arrest (this required notification is what often confusingly called "Miranda Rights").
When might you hear a Miranda warning?
Miranda warnings are required whenever a suspect is subjected to custodial interrogation by the police. They must be read to each criminal suspect before they are interrogated in order to preserve the admissibility of their statements in court.
How long can the police hold you under arrest before reading you your Miranda rights?
The Police in the United States are not required to read you, a Miranda warning before or after arrest - UNLESS or UNTIL they actually begin to question you about a crime you are suspected of.
Are the Miranda rights a state law?
The supreme court case Miranda v. Arizona set the precedent for Miranda rights. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona The case of MIRANDA v. ARIZONA, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) was based on infringement of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. The government (read police) were not reminding people that they had certain protections under the Constitution, including the right not to incriminate themselves in criminal activity. The Supreme Court found that information gathered from a suspect in a custodial environment without the reminder was a violation of Fifth Amendment rights.
Two conditions under which police are required to give individuals Miranda warnings?
Miranda warnings are read to suspects who are: 1. In police custody- suspects whose freedom to leave is curtailed. 2. Under interrogation- suspects who are being asked questions that could lead to self-incrimination.
Which of these statements is trueThe employer is required to give applicants a reason why they aren't hired.The employer is required to hire an employee for an advertised job.The employer is under no obligation to hire you, the job applicant?
The employer is under no obligation to hire you, the job applicant.
Whose case established the concept of the Miranda Warning?
On March 13, 1963, police arrested Ernesto Miranda for stealing money from a Phoenix, Arizona bank worker. During two hours of questioning, Miranda confessed to the crime, but was never offered an attorney during his interrogation and eventually received a prison sentence based primarily on his confession. On June 13, 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Arizona Court's decision and granted Ernesto Miranda a new trial at which his confession could not be admitted as evidence. The ruling established the "Miranda" rights of persons accused of crimes.
Why weren't Miranda rights given to Casey Anthony during initial statements?
The inital statements given by Casey Anthony were part of the investigation to find her missing child that had allegedly been taken by the nanny. She was not under arrest or a suspect in the 'kidnapping' at that time. Initially, the police were investigating a missing person.
When are the police required to give Miranda warnings and under what circumstances might a defendant waive them?
When the police have arrested someone and intent to question him about the crime, they must read the suspect his Miranda rights. The police are exempt from the Miranda warnings when a public safety issue is present. The suspect may wave his rights out of just his free will if he wishes.
