So who's Miranda, anyway?

Question

One of my favorite scenes in Shrek 2 is Donkey getting all upset about not having his Miranda rights read to him and then Shrek says, "Donkey! You HAVE the right to remain silent! WHat you lack, is the capacity!"
Ok, so who is or was Miranda, anyway? How did these (apparently very misunderstood) rights come to be known as "Miranda"? Just curious... and avoiding finishing some paperwork... Thanks.

Answer 1

From Ernesto Miranda, whose conviction was overturned in the Supreme Court because he was not aware that he had rights preventing self-incrimination. It was because of this case that the Supreme Court mandated that anyone arrested be made aware of their basic rights.

http://www.thecapras.org/mcapra/miranda/rights.html

Answer 2

In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix, Arizona for stealing $8 from bank worker and charged with armed robbery. He already had a record for armed robbery, and a juvenile record including attempted rape, assault, and burglary. While in police custody he signed a written confession to the robbery, and to kidnapping and raping an 18-year-old woman 11 days before the robbery. After the conviction, his lawyers appealed, on the grounds that Miranda did not know he was protected from self-incrimination.
The case, Miranda v. Arizona, made it all the way to the Supreme Court, where the conviction was overthrown. In a landmark ruling issued in 1966, the court established that the accused have the right to remain silent and that prosecutors may not use statements made by defendants while in police custody unless the police have advised them of their rights, commonly called the Miranda Rights. The case was later re-tried, Miranda was convicted on the basis of other evidence, and served 11 years. He was paroled in 1972, and died in 1976 at the age of 34, after being stabbed in a bar fight. A suspect was arrested but chose to excercise his right to remain silent, and was released.

Answer 3

Miranda rights come from us federal case that was prosecuting gangsters in new york city.
a guy with the last name of Miranda was not read( told of) his conditional rights for an attorney to represent him before giving a statement.
www.wiiperia.org for research

Answer 4

Ernesto Miranda, a defendant convicted in an Arizona state court, who appealed his conviction all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and won.

There were actually four convicted appellants; the others were: Vignera (New York), Westover (federal government), Stewart (California).

Answer 5

Hi,
Are you wondering how to downoad for free shrek 2? You can get it for free here: http://j.mp/ZYuCX7

it's a perfectly working link, no scam!
f you like bowling and loved the Shrek animated movies you are going to love this game.
It's my favourite game.

Answer 6

Miranda v. Arizona, a landmark 1966 United States Supreme Court case, which stated that criminal suspects must be informed of their right to consult with an attorney and of their right against self-incrimination prior to questioning by police
Miranda warning, a police warning that is given to criminal suspects in police custody in the United States before they are asked questions relating to the commission of crimes
Ernesto Miranda, defendant and appellant of Miranda v. Arizona


The Miranda warning is a police warning that is given to criminal suspects in police custody in the United States before they are asked questions relating to the commission of crimes. Police may request biographical information such as name, date of birth and address without reading suspects their Miranda warnings. Compulsory confessions will not constitute admissible evidence unless suspects have been made aware of and waived their "Miranda rights".

The Miranda warnings were mandated by the 1966 United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Miranda v. Arizona as a means of protecting a criminal suspect's Fifth Amendment right to avoid coercive self-incrimination . However, since its creation by the Warren Court, the Supreme Court has indicated that the Miranda decision imposes "prophylactic" or preventative safeguards rather than protections mandated by the Fifth Amendment privilege.

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.

In 2000, the issue of Miranda rights came up before the Supreme Court once again (Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000)). The justices re-affirmed the role of the earlier precedent.

The Supreme Court did not specify the exact wording to be used when informing a suspect of his or her rights. However, they did set down a set of guidelines which must be followed. The ruling states:

...The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent him.
As a result, American English has acquired the verb Mirandize, meaning to read to a suspect his or her Miranda rights (when that suspect is taken into custody for the purpose of interrogation).

The Supreme Court did not specify the exact wording to be used when informing a suspect of his or her rights. However, they did set down a set of guidelines which must be followed. The ruling states:

...The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent him.
As a result, American English has acquired the verb Mirandize, meaning to read to a suspect his or her Miranda rights (when that suspect is taken into custody for the purpose of interrogation).

Though every U.S. jurisdiction has its own regulations regarding what, precisely, must be said to a person when they are arrested, the typical warning is as follows:

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense.
The courts have since ruled that the warning must be "meaningful", so it is usually required that the suspect be asked if he understands his rights. Sometimes, firm answers of "yes" are required. An arrestee's silence is not a waiver. Evidence has been ruled inadmissible because of an arrestee's poor knowledge of English and the failure of arresting officers to provide the warning in the arrestee's language.

Also because of various education levels, officers must make sure the suspect understands what the officer is saying. It may be necessary to "translate" to the suspect's level of understanding. Courts have ruled this admissible as long as the original waiver is said and the "translation" is recorded either on paper or on tape.

The right of a juvenile to remain silent without his or her parent or guardian present is provided in some jurisdictions.

Indiana, New Jersey, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Alaska add the following sentence:

We have no way of giving you a lawyer, but one will be appointed for you, if you wish, if and when you go to court.
Even though this sentence can be somewhat ambiguous to some hapless laypersons — who can, and who have, interpreted it to mean that "you will not get a lawyer until you confess and are arraigned in court" — the U.S. Supreme Court has approved of it as an accurate description of the procedure in those states. Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195 (1989).

California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania also add the following questions:

Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?
A "yes" answer to both completes the waiver. A "no" to either invokes the right.

Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 31 provides for the right against self-incrimination. Interrogation subjects under Army jurisdiction must first be given Department of the Army Form 3881(PDF), which informs them of the charges and their rights, and sign it. Other services likely have similar forms.

It has been discussed if a Miranda warning - if spoken or in writing - could be appropriately given to disabled persons like deaf ones or people with only an elementary education because "constitutional" or "the right to remain silent" do not convey any meaning to such people; the content of a Miranda warning can be understood by a 6th to 8th grade pupil while only 10 to 15 percent of the prelingually deaf people have been found to be that competent. Police departments have been advised not to say Miranda warnings to deaf people if a lawyer is not present; and videotaping both the Miranda warning and their waiver has also been suggested (from McCay Vernon et al.: "Deaf Murderers: Clinical and Forensic Issues", Behavioural Sciences and the Law 17: 495-516 (1999)).

Due to the prevalence of American television programs and motion pictures in which the police characters frequently read suspects their rights, it has become an expected element of arrest procedure. In 2000, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote that Miranda warnings had "become embedded in routine police practice to the point where the warnings have become part of our national culture" (The Economist, July 2-8, 2005). However, police are only required to warn an individual whom they intend to subject to custodial interrogation at the police station or when detained. Arrests can occur without questioning and without the Miranda warning — although if the police do change their mind and decide to interrogate the suspect, the warning must be given then. Furthermore, if public safety warrants such action, the police may ask questions prior to a reading of the Miranda warning, and the evidence thus obtained can sometimes still be used against the defendant.

Because Miranda only applies to custodial interrogations, it does not protect detainees from standard booking questions: name, date of birth, address, and the like. Because it is a prophylactic measure intended to safeguard the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, it does not prevent the police from taking blood from persons suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol without a warrant.

Currently there is a question about corrections and Miranda. If an inmate is in jail and invoked Miranda on one case, it is unclear whether this extends to any other cases that he or she may be charged with while in custody.

good enough?