Miranda v. Arizona Reaches 50
The subject of this post is the 50th anniversary of the landmark case of Miranda v. Arizona, (1966). In this decision, the United States Supreme Court held that statements from any defendant in police custody are only admissible at trial if the defendant was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before the questioning.
Over the years, this case has become famous through legal proceedings, but also in television shows and movies. When people say that they are giving the “Miranda Warnings,” or “Mirandizing” the suspect, this means that they are advising the criminal defendant that he has a right to an attorney, and anything that the defendant says can and will be used against him in a court of law. This allows the criminal defendant to remain silent until he can talk to legal counsel of his or her choosing. Earlier Supreme Court cases affirmed the rights of criminal defendants to counsel, (and public defenders without charge to the defendant), but this case went further in reminding criminal defendants of this right.
In a nutshell, the holding of the case protects against self-incrimination when a suspect is in law enforcement custody. In other words, the criminal defe
ndant is advised that they need to say nothing until they have an opportunity to talk with their attorney.
If you have any questions about criminal law, generally, please feel free to contact our firm, Daley Zucker Meilton & Miner, LLC, 635 N. 12th Street, Lemoyne, Pennsylvania (717) 724-9821.