He is not read his rights?

[sky753]

Hello everyone,

I have read a piece of news from Yahoo, in which there is a sentence" he was not read his rights" . I don't understand the sentence? I am wondering whether you can take some time to explain?


U.S. officials said Padilla, while incarcerated in a military brig in South Carolina, admitted exploring the dirty bomb plot. But that evidence could not be used at trial because he was not read his rights and did not immediately have access to an attorney.

Regards

Sky

[blouen]

Originally Posted by sky753

Hello everyone,

I have read a piece of news from Yahoo, in which there is a sentence" he was not read his rights" . I don't understand the sentence? I am wondering whether you can take some time to explain?


U.S. officials said Padilla, while incarcerated in a military brig in South Carolina, admitted exploring the dirty bomb plot. But that evidence could not be used at trial because he was not read his rights and did not immediately have access to an attorney.

Regards

Sky

To me it means: his rights was not read or made known to him.

[Barb_D]

Okay, in the U.S., after someone is arrested, they have to be read "their rights." These are also known as Miranda rights, after a court case with a person named Miranda. These includes being told he has the right to not say anything and the reminder that anything said from that point forward can be used against that person in court proceedings. It also includes the right to have an attorney.

Since these rights were not read to Padilla, the information he gave afterwards is inadmissable.

Does that answer your question? You can look up "Miranda rights" for more information.

[a writer, and watcher of television crime dramas, not a teacher]

[sky753]

Originally Posted by Barb_D

Okay, in the U.S., after someone is arrested, they have to be read "their rights." These are also known as Miranda rights, after a court case with a person named Miranda. These includes being told he has the right to not say anything and the reminder that anything said from that point forward can be used against that person in court proceedings. It also includes the right to have an attorney.

Since these rights were not read to Padilla, the information he gave afterwards is inadmissable.

Does that answer your question? You can look up "Miranda rights" for more information.

[a writer, and watcher of television crime dramas, not a teacher]

Many thanks for your reply!

I have looked up on the line and found the the rights including:



1. You have the right to remain silent.
The Court: "At the outset, if a person in custody is to be subjected to interrogation, he must first be informed in clear and unequivocal terms that he has the right to remain silent."

2. Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law.
The Court: "The warning of the right to remain silent must be accompanied by the explanation that anything said can and will be used against the individual in court."

3. You have the right to have an attorney present now and during any future questioning.

The Court: "...the right to have counsel present at the interrogation is indispensable to the protection of the Fifth Amendment privilege under the system we delineate today. ... [Accordingly] we hold that an individual held for interrogation must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation under the system for protecting the privilege we delineate today."

4. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you free of charge if you wish.
The Court: "In order fully to apprise a person interrogated of the extent of his rights under this system then, it is necessary to warn him not only that he has the right to consult with an attorney, but also that if he is indigent a lawyer will be appointed to represent him. Without this additional warning, the admonition of the right to consult with counsel would often be understood as meaning only that he can consult with a lawyer if he has one or has the funds to obtain one.
The Court continues by declaring what the police must do if the person being interrogated indicates that he or she does want a lawyer... "If the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. At that time, the individual must have an opportunity to confer with the attorney and to have him present during any subsequent questioning. If the individual cannot obtain an attorney and he indicates that he wants one before speaking to police, they must respect his decision to remain silent."


Thank you very much!

[Ouisch]

In brief, the Miranda Rights assure that the arrestee has the right to remain silent, that is, he cannot be punished for not saying anything regarding his suspected crime. It's always advisable to keep quiet if you're arrested and wait until your attorney arrives. If you cannot afford to pay an attorney, by law you must be provided one free of charge. And, in one of the many loopholes of American law, if for some reason the arresting officers forget or neglect to read a prisoner his Miranda rights, the case is usually ultimately dismissed because of that.

[sky753]

Originally Posted by Ouisch

In brief, the Miranda Rights assure that the arrestee has the right to remain silent, that is, he cannot be punished for not saying anything regarding his suspected crime. It's always advisable to keep quiet if you're arrested and wait until your attorney arrives. If you cannot afford to pay an attorney, by law you must be provided one free of charge. And, in one of the many loopholes of American law, if for some reason the arresting officers forget or neglect to read a prisoner his Miranda rights, the case is usually ultimately dismissed because of that.

Thanks a million. I have got the real meaning!