Last month, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled on several important cases. While certain cases earned more publicity than others, one of the cases that got the least coverage is the most important for criminal defense purposes. This case, Vega v. Tekoh, clarified that a police officer cannot be sued if he does not give an individual a Miranda warning before interrogating him when that individual’s incriminating statements are introduced as evidence against him in court. 

This has significant implications for criminal defense as it removes a defendant’s ability to seek a remedy for violations of their Miranda rights. If you are being accused of a crime, it is absolutely essential to never give statements to law enforcement that admit guilt. If you are being accused of committing a federal crime, or are even being questioned about one, call an attorney before speaking to investigators. 

What Exactly Are Miranda Rights? 

A Miranda warning is a statement that police are required to give to criminal suspects telling them that they do not need to speak in an interrogation and that anything they say can be used as evidence against them. Miranda warnings also advise suspects that they have a right to an attorney and that, if they cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided. 

Over and over again on television dramas, the case is resolved with the arrest of a suspect while the arresting officer recites the familiar words, “You have the right to remain silent.” Most people are familiar with the idea of Miranda Rights, but many do not clearly understand what they represent or how they came to be such an important part of the legal process.

Why are They Called “Miranda” Rights?

The warnings that so many associate with the arrest of a suspect take their name from a Supreme Court decision dating back to 1966. In that case, a man named Ernesto Miranda was arrested on suspicion of kidnapping, robbery, and rape. During interrogation, Miranda eventually confessed to the crimes and was convicted. He appealed on the grounds that his confession was not voluntary and that no attorney was present during questioning. The United States Supreme Court ultimately agreed and overturned Miranda’s initial conviction. Miranda would later be retried without the confession being permitted as evidence and was convicted again.