Difference between revisions of "Miranda v. Arizona"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Omarshanks (talk | contribs) (The decision did not "free" Mr. Miranda; he was reconvicted without the tainted confession.) |
|||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
:the right to know that anything said can and will be used against the accused | :the right to know that anything said can and will be used against the accused | ||
| − | Conservatives objected strenuously to this decision, which freed many criminals who had not received these warnings. | + | Conservatives objected strenuously to this decision, which freed many criminals who had not received these warnings.{{fact}} |
Revision as of 14:40, April 9, 2007
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was a landmark decision by the Warren Court requiring the police to warn suspects of their rights before conducting custodial interrogations. These warnings, known as the "Miranda warnings," include:
- the right to remain silent
- the right to have an attorney presented
- the right to have an attorney appointed if desired
- the right to know that anything said can and will be used against the accused
Conservatives objected strenuously to this decision, which freed many criminals who had not received these warnings.[Citation Needed]