Miranda Warning

The purpose of the Miranda Warning is to allow individuals the opportunity to speak with an attorney prior to interrogation by police and inform individuals of their right to council even if they are unable to afford one. It also states that individuals may or may not remain silent, but any statement may be used against them in a court of law (Siegel, 2008). The case of Miranda vs. Arizona (1966), preempting the use of the Miranda Warning, not only protects suspects rights, but protects officers from possible future appeals of coercion and intimidating the suspect into a confession of a crime that they did not commit. There are times, however, that statements obtained illegally are permissible in court. One such incidence is when a defendant perjures themselves in court, then the prosecutor may impeach prior testimony and include it during the trial (Siegel, 2008). For example during the trial of man for the murder of his business partner it is discovered that his statements during cross examination were lies. The prosecutor, upon reflection, realizes that earlier statements that the judge threw out due to Miranda issues can now be reintroduced because the perjury brings those statements directly into question. Another situation is when a suspect, who has not been properly Mirandized, provides information and or a confession during an interrogation without specifically requesting to speak with an attorney. The statements themselves may not be used against the individual, but the evidence obtained from them may. Mention or referencing the idea of speaking with an attorney, such as "I don't know maybe I should talk with a lawyer", is not adequate. In a public safety or an emergency situation, police officers may take statements without reading the Miranda Warning. This is known as the public safety doctrine (Siegel, 2008).

Source:

Siegel, L. J. (2008). Police and the Rule of Law: Interrogation. Introduction to Criminal Justice (Twelfth ed. , pp. 339-340). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.