How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Lucy, Esq. Your Own Question
Lucy, Esq.
Lucy, Esq., Lawyer
Category: Criminal Law
Satisfied Customers: 29803
Experience:  Criminal Justice Degree, JD with Criminal Law Concentration. Worked for the DA and U.S. Attorney.
Type Your Criminal Law Question Here...
Lucy, Esq. is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

Miranda v. Arizona established a bright-line rule regarding

Resolved Question:

Miranda v. Arizona established a bright-line rule regarding warnings to suspects. What is the rule and the reason for the rule?
Submitted: 5 years ago.
Category: Criminal Law
Expert:  Lucy, Esq. replied 5 years ago.

My name is XXXXX XXXXX I'd be happy to answer your questions today.

In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court established the rule that, before a suspect may be subjected to custodial interrogation, the police must inform him that he has a right not to incriminate himself and, as a result, he is permitted not to answer any questions.

The reason for the rule was to ensure that a defendant's constitutional rights were not violated during the questioning process. The Supreme Court has said in the past that a confession must be voluntary but, in Miranda, they went further, stating that, in order for a confession to be voluntary, the suspecct must be informed that he has a right to say nothing at all. This is partially because of due process, and partially to protect the Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate yourself. MIranda was not informed of this right and, as a result, his confession was found to be inadmissible.
Lucy, Esq. and other Criminal Law Specialists are ready to help you