Why are the miranda rights called the miranda rights and not something else? Where'd miranda part come from?

Answer 1

cause the man that was arested and not given his rights was named miranda. the case was miranda v. arizona

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona

Answer 2

The name comes from the case that went before the Supreme Court in 1966, Miranda v. Arizona. The "Miranda" in question was a man named Ernest Arthur Miranda of Phoenix, Arizona. He was accused of rape, and the only evidence offered by the prosecution was his confession. Upon appeal of his conviction, the Arizona Supreme Court relied heavily on the fact that he had not requested an attorney, and upheld the conviction. Earl Warren, then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, delivered the ruling of the court, stating that a confession by the suspect was not admissable unless the suspect had been made aware of his rights, and the conviction was overturned.

Answer 3

The appeal which resulted in the Court's determination that the accused must be advised of certain rights involved a defendant named Miranda. The rights were required by the decision in the Miranda case, so people started referring to them as Miranda Rights. It stuck.

Answer 4

The Miranda warnings were mandated by the 1966 United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Miranda v. Arizona.

In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and rape. He made a confession without having been told of his constitutional right to remain silent and his right to have an attorney present during police questioning. At trial, prosecutors offered only his confession as evidence and he was convicted. The Supreme Court ruled that Miranda was intimidated by the interrogation and that he did not understand his right not to incriminate himself or his right to counsel

Answer 5

Because the guy that originally sued and won a case which led to the requirement of the reading of rights was named Miranda. It was Miranda v. Arizona in 1966, Supreme Court case.

Answer 6

I don't remember his first name but Mr. Miranda was arrested for a crime years ago. He was placed under arrest and was questioned by police, then he was tried and convicted by his own evidence given to police. His case was appealed all the way to the supreme court and Mr. Miranda won his case. The supreme court ruling from that case id the "Miranda Warning" of today. Mr. Miranda was released and was later murdered in another crime.

Answer 7

Miranda vs Arizona was a Supreme Court case that ruled that a suspect must be advied

1. That they have the right to an attorney, if they have no money the state will provide one.

2. That they have the right to refuse to answer any questions until thier attorney is present .

These were later codified into the four warnings we have become familiar with.

3. That if they start anwering they can stop whenever they want

Answer 8

back in the early-to-mid 1960s, a felon (last name miranda) was jailed without knowing his rights as a citizen. while i certainly don't approve of coddling felons/perps, rights as citizens should not be trampled upon just because... when the rights & certainities under the constitution of the usa is bent for so-called "good reasons", we all get bent in the process. everytime you silence your enemy, you are also silencing yourself. anyway, the miranda decision of the us supreme court was handed down & by the 1970s, you have to 'mirandasize' arrested people. there is also, at the same time, the escobedo decision but that's another story.

Answer 9

It originated as a case in 1966 from the state of arizona and to the supreme court. Miranda v. Arizona. It is a police warning given to all suspects before asking them questions relating to a criminal occurance. It allows the suspect to refuse to talk to police and request an attorney be present while questioning is taking place.
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/miranda_warning

Answer 10

The person's name was Miranda that challenged the legallity of his statements being read against him with out being aware of his rights. He won the appeal and the charges were dropped. From that point on , anyone being arrested is read his rights, The right to remain silent, right to an attourney, ect... the case was in 1963 I think.

Answer 11

It was the last name of the person arrested that brought the suit to the supreme court in the first place