10 Facts About Miranda warning

Language used in a Miranda warning was derived from the 1966 US Supreme Court case Miranda v Arizona.

Miranda warning is part of a preventive criminal procedure rule that law enforcement are required to administer to protect an individual who is in custody and subject to direct questioning or its functional equivalent from a violation of their Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination.

Courts have since ruled that the Miranda warning must be "meaningful", so it is usually required that the suspect be asked if they understand their rights.

Since Miranda warning rights are simply a judicial gloss upon the Fifth Amendment which protects against coercive interrogations, the same rule prevents prosecutors from commenting about the post-arrest silence of suspects who invoke their Miranda warning rights immediately after arrest.

However, neither the Fifth Amendment nor Miranda warning extend to pre-arrest silence, which means that if a defendant takes the witness stand at trial, the prosecutor can attack his credibility with his pre-arrest silence.

Related searches

Miranda warning rule applies to the use of testimonial evidence in criminal proceedings that is the product of custodial police interrogation.

Fifth Amendment right to counsel, a component of the Miranda warning Rule, is different from the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

Miranda warning interrogation includes express questioning and any actions or statements that an officer would reasonably foresee as likely to cause an incriminating response.

Miranda warning applies only to custodial interrogations, it does not protect detainees from standard booking questions such as name and address.

Miranda warning speaks to the custodial staff regarding the fight without staff first invoking Miranda.