Rule of Law
The main precedent that had been established with the Miranda v. Arizona ruling is that “The warning of the right to remain silent must be accompanied by the explanation that anything said can and will be used against the individual in court. This warning is needed in order to make him aware not only of the privilege, but also of the consequences of forgoing it” (http://www.landmarkcases.org/miranda/majority.html). The suspected person must be clearly informed of his or her rights in order to comply with the Fifth Amendment. This ruling applies to every single person in the United States. If there has been no such Miranda Warning, any thing the suspect says without first being warned cannot be admitted at trial, stating in the majority opinion that “Only through such a warning is there ascertainable assurance that the accused was aware of this right” (http://www.landmarkcases.org/miranda/majority.html).
The Dissent
15 years ago
No comments:
Post a Comment