- February 23, 2010
- No comments
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966), was a landmark case argued before the United States Supreme Court February 28–March 1, 1966 and decided June 13, 1966. The Court held that statements made in response to interrogation of an accused in police custody will be admissible only if the prosecution can show that the defendant was informed of the right to consult with an attorney and advised of the right against self-incrimination before questioning by police began, and that the defendant not only understood these rights, but knowingly and voluntarily waived them.
Courts today are still deciding cases relating to the issue of Miranda warnings. In New Jersey this week the Court heard arguments relating to the legality and admissibility of pre-Miranda questioning. In the specific case argued, State v. Yohnnson, the issue was a confession made post-Miranda warnings but Miranda warnings were not issued before questioning began. The Court held that the totality of the circumstances must be viewed in determining whether the Defendant’s rights were undermined. The Court ultimately held that the Defendant konwingly and voluntarily waived his rights before confessing, even though he was questioned for three hours before the warnings were given.
Finding oneself in a custodial situation under pressure to confess is designed to elicit the information sought, whether true or not. For more information on your rights or to obtain counsel to assist you if your rights have been violated visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com.