Miranda Research Paper

The Use of Miranda

The rule outlined in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (1966), requires that certain safeguards be put in place by an officer to protect an individual’s privilege against self-incrimination when an individual is taken into custody is subjected to questioning. The procedural safeguards require that an individual interrogated while in custody be told, “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense. Further, if the individual waives these rights that the individual knowingly and intelligently waive these rights to answer the questions or give a statement."

California, 511 U.S. 318 (1994). Interrogation is considered questioning "reasonably likely to elicit incriminating information. Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582 (1990). Both of these factors depend on a whether a reasonable person in this situation would have felt free to leave or felt that the questioning would have resulted in the suspect providing incriminating evidence.

If the Miranda warnings are not provided or the suspect does not knowingly waive his or her rights evidence obtained after this fact will be treated as inadmissible evidence in a criminal trial Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) Moreover any information discovered as a result of improperly given or forced interrogation against the Fifth Amendment must also be excluded as evidence against the suspect in a criminal trial as it is considered "fruit of the poisonous tree" Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471