Miranda v. Arizona
In Miranda v. Arizona the Court established unequivocal protections that the accused was entitled to during interrogation "while in custody at the station or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way."
Miranda established that the accused must be informed that he or she has the right to remain silent and that if the suspect chooses not to remain silent that anything said can be used against the suspect in court. Before being interrogated the suspect must also be informed of the right to consult with an attorney, and to have legal counsel present during interrogation.
Additionally, the Miranda rule also requires that if the suspect is indigent that he or she be informed that the court will provide counsel. If the suspect decides to remain silent, then the interrogation must end. Any statements obtained in violation of the suspects' Miranda rights are inadmissible as evidence in court. If the suspect decides to speak without consulting with an attorney then the prosecutor must prove that the suspect willingly waived Miranda rights.
Law Library - American Law and Legal InformationNotable Trials and Court Cases - 1963 to 1972Miranda v. Arizona - Significance, Tainted Evidence, Conviction Overturned, Impact, Miranda Rights, Further Readings