In the United States, the Miranda warning is a type of notification customarily given by police to criminal suspects in police custody advising them of their right to silence and, in effect, protection from self-incrimination; that is, their right to refuse to answer questions or provide information to law enforcement or other officials. Named for the U.S. Supreme Court's 1966 decision Miranda v. Arizona, these rights are often referred to as Miranda rights. The purpose of such notification is to preserve the admissibility of their statements made during custodial interrogation in later criminal proceedings. The idea came from law professor Yale Kamisar, who subsequently was dubbed "the father of Miranda."
The right to silence is a legal principle which guarantees any individual the right to refuse to answer questions from law enforcement officers or court officials. It is a legal right recognized, explicitly or by convention, in many of the world's legal systems.
Ernesto Arturo Miranda was an American laborer whose criminal conviction on kidnapping, rape, and armed robbery charges based on his confession under police interrogation was set aside in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona, which ruled that criminal suspects must be informed of their right against self-incrimination and their right to consult with an attorney before being questioned by police. This warning is known as a Miranda warning.
William Brydges was a Canadian man whose arrest for murder resulted in the leading Supreme Court of Canada case R v Brydges on the right of a detainee to access duty counsel. His case was a Canadian precedent, and created significant controversy after the Supreme Court of Canada upheld his acquittal. He was found to have been denied access to an attorney because he was not informed of legal services available to him when he told police he could not afford a lawyer. This case had nationwide ramifications, requiring all police officers to advise a person under arrest of the availability of legal services even if they couldn't afford them.
Section 10 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms specifies rights upon arrest or detention, including the rights to consult a lawyer and the right to habeas corpus. As a part of a broader range of legal rights guaranteed by the Charter, section 10 rights may be limited by the Oakes test and/or the notwithstanding clause. However, section 10 has also spawned considerable litigation, and has made an impact in numerous cases.
John Murray v United Kingdom was a legal case heard by the European Court of Human Rights in 1996 regarding the right to silence in the United Kingdom, especially the legality of the reduction in the right so as to allow for adverse inferences to be made.
In criminal law, the right to counsel means a defendant has a legal right to have the assistance of counsel and, if the defendant cannot afford a lawyer, requires that the government appoint one or pay the defendant's legal expenses. The right to counsel is generally regarded as a constituent of the right to a fair trial. Historically, however, not all countries have always recognized the right to counsel. The right is often included in national constitutions. Of the 194 constitutions currently in force, 153 have language to this effect.
R v Therens [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613 is an early Supreme Court of Canada decision on an accused's right to retain and instruct counsel without delay under section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court held that when a person was detained for the purpose of giving a breath sample under section 235(1) of the Criminal Code, they have the right to consult counsel. Since the police did not allow the accused to do so, they violated the accused's right to retain counsel. The Court ruled that the evidence was properly excluded.
R v Brydges, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 190 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the right to retain and instruct counsel under section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court held that the right imposed a duty upon the police to provide information and access to a legal aid lawyer if needed. From this case came the term "Brydges Counsel" to refer to legal aid lawyers that assist recently arrested individuals.
R v Strachan, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 980 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the exclusion of evidence under section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms subsequent to a violation of a Charter right. The Court held that there does not need to be a causal connection between the violation and the evidence, but rather there need only be a temporal link between the two.
R v Bartle, [1994] 3 SCR 173 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the right to retain and instruct counsel under section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter"). The Court held that a police officer is required to hold off on his or her investigation upon arresting an individual until the detainee has been informed of his or her rights and given sufficient information and access to contact a private lawyer or duty counsel. The case applied the earlier Supreme Court of Canada decision R v Brydges. The judgment was released with three other decisions: R v Pozniak, R v Harper, R v Matheson and R v Prosper.
R v Prosper, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 236 is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the right to duty counsel upon arrest or detainment by police under section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court found that merely reading the accused his or her rights is insufficient to discharge the right to counsel; the police must also provide the accused with access to legal aid or duty counsel.
Clarkson v R, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 383 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the right to retain and instruct counsel under section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court held that in order for an accused to waive their right to retain and instruct counsel they must be clear and unequivocal, and the accused must be aware of the consequences of the waiver.
R v Latimer, [1997] 1 SCR 217, was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in the controversial case of Robert Latimer, a Saskatchewan farmer convicted of murdering his disabled daughter Tracy. The case involved consideration of arbitrary detention under section 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and rights to an explanation for detention and rights to counsel under section 10. The Supreme Court ultimately overturned Latimer's conviction due to the Crown's improper actions at the jury selection stage. As a result, the decision was the first given by the Supreme Court in the Latimer case, the second being R v Latimer on cruel and unusual punishment under section 12 of the Charter.
McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171 (1991), held that the right to counsel secured by the Sixth Amendment and the right to counsel protected by Miranda v. Arizona are separate and distinct, such that invoking one does not implicitly invoke the other.
Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625 (1986), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court regarding the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel in a police interrogation. In a decision written by Justice Stevens, the Court held that once an accused individual has claimed a right to counsel at a plea hearing or other court proceeding, a waiver of that right during later police questioning would be invalid unless the accused individual initiated the communication.
R v Suberu2009 SCC 33 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on section 9 and section 10 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court applied the new test for detention created in the companion case of R v Grant and ruled on the timing of when an individual is required to be informed of his or her rights to counsel after being arrested or detained.
R v Sinclair2010 SCC 35 is a leading case from the Supreme Court of Canada on a detainee's right to counsel under section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
People v. Newton, 8 Cal. App. 3d 359, was a controversial appeal arising from the voluntary manslaughter conviction of Huey P. Newton, the reputed co-founder of the Black Panther Party for Self Defense. The California Court of Appeal reversed Newton's conviction due to prejudicial error stemming from the trial court's failure to instruct the jury as to the possibility of involuntary unconsciousness as a complete defense to the charges. Though Newton's attorney arguably withdrew the defense at trial, the Court nonetheless held that the failure to instruct violated Newton's constitutional right to have the jury determine all material issues based on the evidence. This case stands for the proposition that trial courts have an affirmative duty to instruct juries as to a defense of involuntary unconsciousness where there exists evidence that may support that conclusion.
R v Cook, [1998] 2 SCR 597, is a leading Charter decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court held that Canadian police located in the United States were still subject to the Charter when interrogating a suspect for a murder in Canada.