Miranda Warning
Usually given to suspect just prior to being questioned:

1.  Before we ask you any questions, you must understand your legal rights.

2. You have the right to remain silent.

3. Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law.

4. You have the right to talk with a lawyer for advice, before we ask you any
    questions and to have him with you during questioning.

5. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you before
    questioning, if you wish.

6. If you decide to answer questions now without a lawyer present, you will
    still have the right to stop questioning at any time until you talk to a lawyer.

7. Do you understand what I have read to you?

8. Having those rights in mind, do you wish to talk to me now?

The above is one example, and it is very simply stated. 

The constitutional test of Amendment V is met:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The constitutional test of Amendment VI is met:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

The Miranda Warning was, on 6/26/2000, upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, 7-2,
citing the landmark Arizona v. Miranda.  The two dissenting justices were Antonin
Scalia, and Clarence Thomas.

       Case Summary:

       Case #: 99-5525
       Argument date: April, 19, 2000
       Decision date: June 26, 2000

       Charles Thomas Dickerson vs. United States
       Do police have to warn a suspect of the right to remain silent, as specified by the Supreme Court’s
       1966 Miranda decision, in order to use a suspect’s confession, or was that requirement overridden by
       a law passed by Congress?

       The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 ruling, reinforced the warnings that have been made familiar to generations
       of Americans through T-V and movies. Without those warnings, the court says, criminal suspects’
       confessions can be excluded as evidence. Writing for the court, Chief Justice William Rehnquist said
       the 1966 Miranda case set a “constitutional rule that Congress may not supersede.” And he said the
       justices do not want to overrule Miranda themselves.

At issue before the court in the more recent case, Dickerson v. United States, was whether a federal law,
passed in reaction to the Miranda decision, legislatively overruled the court's ruling in that case, effectively
doing away with readings by police of Miranda rights.

The law, 18 U.S.C. § 3501, says that the admissibility in court of a suspect's statements to police depends
on whether they were given voluntarily. The law does not, however, require that police issue any kind of
warning instructing suspects of their rights.

What is the Miranda Warning?- Legal debates and cited cases
Supreme Court Reaffirms Miranda Decision

Back to Legal Resources