2006-07-17 14:14:36 · 8 answers · asked by SURAJ 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
"In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and rape, which he confessed to with no warning of his constitutional right to silence, or his right to have an attorney present. At trial, prosecutors offered only his confession as evidence and he was convicted. The Supreme Court ruled (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)) that Miranda was intimidated by the interrogation and that he did not understand his right not to incriminate himself or his right to counsel. On this basis, they overturned his conviction. Miranda was later convicted in a new trial, with witnesses testifying against him and other evidence presented. He served 11 years."
You can read about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning
2006-07-17 14:20:21 · answer #1 · answered by Grumpy Kansan 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
The other answers are correct. It is the result of the Miranda case in which the US Supreme Court spelled out the basic warnings someone must receive.
2006-07-17 16:07:23 · answer #2 · answered by BOA 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's named after a US Supreme Court case, Miranda v. Arizona.
2006-07-17 14:28:51 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
A man named Miranda got a conviction overturned by the Supreme Court because he was not aware of his right to counsel. Hence when you are arrested, when the arresting officer reads you your rights, it is refered to as 'reading your Miranda rights'.
2006-07-17 14:21:49 · answer #4 · answered by F. Frederick Skitty 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Miranda was the name of the plaintiff in the 1960's Supreme court ruling which insisted that cops must inform people in custudy of their rights.
2006-07-17 14:18:35 · answer #5 · answered by neerdowel 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I could be wrong, but I believe it has to do with a man who was arrested by the police, his last name was Miranda. The police failed to advise him of his constitutional rights at the moment of his arrest, and, I believe, he got off.
2006-07-17 14:23:03 · answer #6 · answered by jorst 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Did you list the communique? Do you've witnesses to the communique - became your telephone on speaker or some thing like that? with out that, you're unlikely to get some thing. One answer stated search for suggestion from an criminal specialist. which will value you significantly better than the $50 you're saying you owe. You knew you owed it, apparently you've owed it for some time. Pay the $50 and get the collector off your decrease back.
2016-12-01 19:40:12 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because of a court case that made it mandatory that people being arrested know their rights.
2006-07-17 14:18:51 · answer #8 · answered by C 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋