Word: miranda
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: all
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...Supreme Court decisions that have come under withering attack in recent years, one of those that angered the court's critics most was Miranda v. Arizona. In that case, three years ago, the court reversed the kidnap-rape conviction of a man named Ernesto Miranda, who had not been advised of his constitutional rights before he confessed at a Phoenix police station. A 5-to-4 majority of the Justices declared that any criminal suspect is at an enormous disadvantage in the inherently coercive atmosphere of a station house unless fully informed of his rights...
Risking further criticism last week, the court amplified its earlier decision by ruling that Miranda should not be interpreted to cover only station-house interrogations. This time, a 6-to-2 majority of the Justices* threw out the murder conviction of a man named Reyes Arias Orozco, who had been questioned not at the station house but in his own bedroom. Writing for the majority, Justice Hugo Black denied that he was broadening the restrictions imposed by Miranda "to the slightest extent." Instead, Black cited a sentence from the earlier decision requiring that a person be warned...
Black noted that from the moment Orozco gave the officers his name, according to their testimony, he "was not free to go where he pleased but was under arrest." The police had thus acted improperly, said Black. They had not advised him-as required by Miranda-of his right to remain silent, to have the advice of a lawyer before making any statement and to have a lawyer appointed for him if he could not afford...
Clark said that another Supreme Court decision--"Miranda," which requires police to notify suspects of their legal rights--"is not too meaningful because no one pays attention to it." Many people oppose Miranda, Clark said, "because they fear telling some people about rights that other people know they have...
When it comes to the interrogation of criminal suspects, Friendly argues for a more narrow interpretation of the Fifth than the court gave in Miranda v. Arizona (TIME, June 24, 1966). At the very least, Friendly believes, a policeman investigating a crime should be able to question a suspect on the street before taking him into custody. Yet he fears that the court may eventually bar even this. Nor is it asking too much, says Friendly, to require a man brought to the station house to identify himself. Agreeing with the goal of Miranda-to make certain that the rights...