legal ques-on Miranda...Defendant read Miranda rights but did not sign written waiver-still valid?
139789
With all due respect to Histroyfanatic, that answer is wrong on a number of points.\n\n1.  It's possible it's valid and but it's not possible to tell from this question.\n\n2.  The defendant NEVER has to prove they understand their rights, the prosecution does.\n\n3.  If Histroyfanatic is suggesting that someone must have their rights read to them, read them and sign a waiver, that's also incorrect (the sentence was a little hard to decipher, so I'm not sure).\n\nSome discussion:\n\nIf the defendant read their rights and understood what they read, then the waiver (if there was one; the question does not say) is valid.  All the Miranda case required of law enforcement was that a defendant be told what their rights are...no format was prescribed with which to do so.\n\nIf the defendant was never asked about understanding the rights, then I think there's an argument that can be made that he/she did not understand them.  Whether you read them, hear them, or "see" them in braille, if you understood what you were told and have indicated that in some fashion, the waiver is valid.\n\nThere are a few arguments that can be had with what I've written here because I did not want to write out a Constitution and Miranda 101 class.  If you want more of an answer than this, you need to provide some additional details, like;\n\nDoes your state have a requirement that the suspect sign the Miranda waiver?  (there's no such requirement under federal law)\n\nDid the suspect understand the waiver?\n\nWas it a legally sufficient Miranda warning? (it's gotta say certain things, though even the exact wording is not required by the case itself).\n\nMore details = better answer.
781327
to the last guy no she doesn't need writing skills she had a limit and had to fit everything in so she cut back letters. anyway not sure where you live that would be a big help. you can go outside of your county for an attorney. i would never buy anything off of the street. too late for that now though. obviously the antique riffle wasn't for illegal use and the bottles were obviously prescribed. a good attorney outside of the crooked circle should be able to get him off. as far as not being allowed food or a call. that's against his rights and is a possible law suit.
1135362
It all depends on the reason a guilty verdict or conviction was entered against you.  If the ONLY reason you were found guilty was because of a statement you made after being OFFICIALLY arrested and BEFORE your Miranda was read and explained to you then the Judge would be required to suppress that statement and, barring any other evidence, you would be released.  That does not mean that you'll beat the charge though.  The authorities can, and if they want you bad enough, will follow up and collect as much independent evidence, rearrest you and try for a conviction.  If you were found guilty or convicted by any other means than it does not matter if your Miranda's were read and explained because nothing you said was used against you - it was the things you did.\n\nIf you are relying on the lack of the Miranda's to set you free then you should expect not to be freed.  At the most it would be a temporary reprieve.
545462
The requirement of the reading of the Miranda rights is just a crutch because most American are too lazy to know what their rights are. Most Americans aren't knowledgeable enough about their basic Constitutional rights to know what their rights are when they are arrested. It's pretty sad.\n\nedit\n\nThe Miranda rights ARE Constitutional rights based on the 5th Amendment - "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself", thus the "right to remain silent". \n\nThe "right to an attorney" comes from the 6th amendment - "... and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. "\n\ngailforce_wind went into good detail about the case where it all started.
1042643
A warrant gives law enforcers the authority to perform an action, such as search your house or arrest you.  It unties the police's hands of having to have 'probable cause' in order to treat you as a suspect.\n\n\nThe Miranda Warning(for USA) is:\nYou have the right to remain silent. If you give up that right, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney and to have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to you at no cost. During any questioning, you may decide at any time to exercise these rights, not answer any questions, or make any statements.
264853
1.. What state did this incident occur in? 2..The revised statute codes have 3 letters and not 2. 3..Why did you ask the same question four times? 4..How old are you? 5..Why would you enter a plea unless you had been charged and know that the charges had not expired? 6..Anyone know why attorneys have so much college behind them?
943565
Your question is too vague. But here are some things I can tell you.\n(a) Miranda warnings (right to remain silent, etc) are provided to you ONLY if the police plan on talking to you--they're a prerequisite of "custodial interrogation."  Police DO NOT have to provide Miranda warnings if they just plan to arrest you and don't want to get a confession from you.  This is true in every state (because it's based on the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution) although some states may require more detail.\n(b) The "one phone call" rule is not constitutionally based.\n(c) If you're arrested and you ask for a lawyer, interrogation must cease, and lawyer must be provided to you at every "critical stage" of the prosecution of your case if you're charged with a felony.  (They don't have to provide you a lawyer before that if they don't want to interrogate you--these are two separate rights)\n(d) You have a right to a speedy trial\n(e) You have a right not to have exceesive bail.  But that's pretty fluid.\n(f) You have a right to "confront" the witnesses against you during a trial, and you also have a right to have an understanding of the government's evidence, and especially any exculpatory evidence that the government may have in its possession.\n(g) You have a right to a jury trial\n(i) You have a right to represent yourself if you wish\n(j) You have a right to basic protections against unfair investigational techniques (i.e. searches with warrants in most situations, no coerced confessions)\n(k) You have a right to an appeal, and to have counsel appointed for that appeal.\n\nAnd the government has certainly tried to curtail many of these rights against "terror" suspects, but generally, if you're a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, it will be very difficult for the government to subvert most of these basic rights.
743023
First of all tell your brother to exercise his right to remain silent and "shut up"  If he didn't touch the register then he didn't touch the register.  Its he said against he said.  when he was arrested did he have any amounts of currency or credit card receipts from the register on his person?  If not then they have no case. Lastly, with even a lame attorney they have to give you access to any video tape, its called "discovery" and you must be able to see it and it must be authenticated.  Most lawyers can destroy the authentication process, review entire tape and see if he has his old lady doing he nasty or just boring surveillance footage.  You can be arrested for anything, but whether your convicted or not is the thing. If you are acquitted then you sue for false arrest, malicious prosecution, sue the former employer for slander, depending on the circumstances I could think up a lot of things, but you need to make one thing clear and that's that your brother is innocent.  As for not being read his Miranda rights, the whole case should be thrown out based on that.  The moment the cuffs went on the Miranda rights and reason for arrest need to be stated,  Good Luck  What state are you in?
558033
You didn't give much information!!\n\n\nThe Miranda Warning is only read to you if you are going to be questioned in relation to a criminal offense.\n\nNo one reads your rights on traffic. If you were arrested on a traffic ..you either had an outstanding warrant (capias profine) or you committed a traffic offense "On View" by an officer. (and probably recorded via video camera)
481563
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_V_Arizona
837211
For a confession to be admissible, the waiver of rights must by knowing and voluntary.  This means if you made it clear that you did not understand your rights, the officer should attempt to reread and explain them to you.  The officer should not ask you any questions until it is clear that you understand your rights.
36949
As the years wore on, however, Miranda grew to be familiar and widely accepted. Due to the prevalence of American television police dramas made since that decision in which the police read suspects their "Miranda rights", it has become an expected element of arrest procedure around the world. As a result of the case, the American English vocabulary has acquired a new verb, "to mirandize" meaning to read to a suspect, held in custody, his Miranda rights. Americans began to feel that the warnings contributed to the legitimacy of police interrogations. In the actual practise, it was found many suspects waived their Miranda rights and confessed anyway\nEven aside blatant circumvention, the issue of "free will" in waiving Miranda rights has been raised, with the suggestion a suspect, simply by being in custody, is already sufficiently coerced as to call "free will" into question. It is clear the debate over Miranda is not over
897404
That depends.  Were you charged with something or did you write a statement as a witness.  If you are charged with something you can always invoke your rights at any time.  Even if you invoke your rights they can still use your written statement against you.  If you were only a witness (or a victim) you can not "plead the 5th".  Then again, for the most part, they can not make you testify either.
976415
I am of the opinion that the presiding judge is well within his right to record a fiding exparte and it is not in violation of the principle of natural justice, so long as the respondent was given due notice of the proceedings according him an opportunity to be heard. The principle of natural justice does not mean that no order can be passed without hearing the parties concerned. It only requires that the parties before the forum should be given an opportunity to being heard. If the respondent had any difficulty in appearing before the judicial forum, like paucity of funds or threat to life, that is an entirely different matter. There were several options before him to meet such situations. Paucity of funds cannot be a valid ground for non-appearance. It is upto him to fend for himself to protect his own interests. I am sure there are provisions in the law prevailing in the USA, as it is in many other countries, for free legal aid for the indigent citizens. He could have availed of free legal aid. As regards the intimidation, which purportedlty detained him from appearance, it was open to him to lodge a criminal complaint against the petitioner and a copy of the complaint, if produced before the judge, would have weighed in his favour, for further adjournemetnt of his case. \n\nNow, that the matter has come to an end, before the learned judge, he has got two options. One is that he file a petition for review before the very same judge who passed the order and the second one is preferring an appeal before the appeallate authoruity. You may do this through a legal aid forum, if any available.
671414
For minor in possession, officers do not need to give a breath test or sobriety test. The officers can just smell the cup for an alcoholic beverage. From your story the officers definitely have probable cause to believe your son was in possession of alcohol.\n\nAfter an arrest, officers are allowed to search the subject and the area within the subject's immediate control to discover weapons, evidence or any items that can be used to escape.\n\nAlso officers do not need to read a subject his Miranda rights unless they are questioning him while in custody. Officers are allowed to ask general question to determine what has occurred and whether a crime has occurred. Miranda also does not apply to basic information such as name, address, date of birth.\n\nThe mistake on the ticket will not affect the officer's case unless he made several others. This mistake will be considered a good faith error.\n\nYour son appears to be guilty and the officers appear to have operated within the law. I would try to get a diversion if this is available in your area.
1161302
The point here is that he had a prescription with him that was not in his name, which is a second-degree misdemeanor. His plea agreement says he "will refrain from any violation of any law." It doesn't matter what his motivation was, he violated the law. I'm interested to see how this plays out...
797202
Plea Bargain!... lol... okay, I dont' know the details and you're giving me second hand information, and I'd never give actual legal advice, so this is entirely opinionated. Details don't matter, but he's likely going to be represented by the state, and the State Attorney will have suggestions, and inform him of his violations  about this issue, which is between him and the S.A.O. (State Attorney's Office), and the Public Defender he is assigned, if so. \n\nWhat you can do, is either hire him a private attorney, or show up at his Pre-Trial and show support!