As Lawyers will tell you about dealing with the Police and/or D.A.s, always remember 3 things,
2.Keep your mouth Shut.
3.Don't say anything.
In other words, KEEP YOUR MOUTH CLOSED! More people are convicted of crimes by talking to the Police & D.A.s then any other reason by an overwhelming margin! In essence, Hanging Themselves?! Again, the Burden of Proof is on them to convict you of the alleged crime, why would you want to help them to convict you???
A cop points at you and says, "Read him his rights." From TV, you know this is not good. You know that you have been taken into police custody and are about to be informed of your "Miranda Rights" prior to being questioned. Fine, but what are these rights, and what did "Miranda" do to get them for you?
How We Got Our Miranda Rights
On March 13, 1963, $8.00 in cash was stolen from a Phoenix, Arizona bank worker. Police suspected and arrested Ernesto Miranda for committing the theft.
During two-hours of questioning, Mr. Miranda, who was never offered a lawyer, confessed not only to the $8.00 theft, but also to kidnapping and raping an 18-year-old woman 11 days earlier.
Based largely on his confession, Miranda was convicted and sentenced to twenty years in jail.
Miranda's attorneys appealed. First unsuccessfully to the Arizona Supreme Court, and next to the U.S. Supreme Court.
On June 13, 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court, in deciding the case of MIRANDA v. ARIZONA, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), reversed the Arizona Court's decision, granted Miranda a new trial at which his confession could not be admitted as evidence, and established the "Miranda" rights of persons accused of crimes. Keep reading, because the story of Ernesto Miranda has a most ironic ending.
Two earlier cases involving police activity and the rights of individuals clearly influenced the Supreme Court in the Miranda decision:
Mapp v. Ohio (1961): Looking for someone else, Cleveland, Ohio Police entered Dollie Mapp's home. Police did not find their suspect, but arrested Ms. Mapp for possessing obscene literature. Without a warrant to search for the literature, Ms. Mapp's conviction was thrown out.
Escobedo v. Illinois (1964): After confessing to a murder during questioning, Danny Escobedo changed his mind and informed police that he wanted to talk to a lawyer. When police documents were produced showing that officers had been trained to ignore the rights of suspects during questioning, the Supreme Court ruled that Escobedo's confession could not be used as evidence.
What the Miranda Rights Say
The exact wording of the "Miranda Rights" statement is not specified in the Supreme Court's historic decision. Instead, law enforcement agencies have created a basic set of simple statements that can be read to accused persons prior to any questioning.
Here are paraphrased examples of the basic "Miranda Rights" statements, along with related excerpts from the Supreme Court's decision.
1. You have the right to remain silent.
The Court: "At the outset, if a person in custody is to be subjected to interrogation, he must first be informed in clear and unequivocal terms that he has the right to remain silent."
2. Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law.
The Court: "The warning of the right to remain silent must be accompanied by the explanation that anything said can and will be used against the individual in court."
3. You have the right to have an attorney present now and during any future questioning.
The Court: "...the right to have counsel present at the interrogation is indispensable to the protection of the Fifth Amendment privilege under the system we delineate today. ... [Accordingly] we hold that an individual held for interrogation must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation under the system for protecting the privilege we delineate today."
4. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you free of charge if you wish.
The Court: "In order fully to apprise a person interrogated of the extent of his rights under this system then, it is necessary to warn him not only that he has the right to consult with an attorney, but also that if he is indigent a lawyer will be appointed to represent him. Without this additional warning, the admonition of the right to consult with counsel would often be understood as meaning only that he can consult with a lawyer if he has one or has the funds to obtain one.
The Court continues by declaring what the police must do if the person being interrogated indicates that he or she does want a lawyer...
"If the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. At that time, the individual must have an opportunity to confer with the attorney and to have him present during any subsequent questioning. If the individual cannot obtain an attorney and he indicates that he wants one before speaking to police, they must respect his decision to remain silent."
But -- You can be arrested without being read your Miranda Rights
The Miranda rights do not protect you from being arrested, only from incriminating yourself during questioning. All police need to legally arrest a person is "probable cause" -- an adequate reason based on facts and events to believe the person has committed a crime.
Police are required to "Read him his (Miranda) rights," only before interrogating a suspect. While failure to do so may cause any subsequent statements to be thrown out of court, the arrest may still be legal and valid.
Also without reading the Miranda rights, police are allowed to ask routine questions like name, address, date of birth, and Social Security number necessary to establishing a person's identity. Police can also administer alcohol and drug tests without warning, but persons being tested may refuse to answer questions during the tests.
Source: Court TV Legal Survival Guide
An Ironic Ending for Ernesto Miranda
Ernesto Miranda was given a second trial at which his confession was not presented. Based on the evidence, Miranda was again convicted of kidnapping and rape. He was paroled from prison in 1972 having served 11 years.
In 1976, Ernesto Miranda, age 34, was stabbed to death in a fight. Police arrested a suspect who, after choosing to exercise his Miranda rights of silence, was released.
I was not read my rights...will my case be dismissed?
The simple answer is probably not. Most people believe that a case may be thrown out of court if the police officer does not provide them with their "Miranda warnings" when they are arrested. I am confident that this belief comes from the abundance of television programs that show the Miranda warnings given whenever someone is being arrested.
A Miranda warning is necessary if the police officer interrogates someone and wants to use their responses as evidence. If the police officer fails to give you a Miranda warning, nothing you say in response to the questioning can be used as evidence to convict you. Additionally, under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" rule, if the police officer finds evidence as a result of an interrogation that violates the Miranda rule, that evidence is also inadmissible at trial. For example, if you tell the police officer where a weapon is hidden and it turns out that you gave this information in response to improper questioning, the police officer will not be able to use the weapon as evidence unless the officer can prove that they would have found the weapon without your statements.