请选择 进入手机版|继续访问电脑版

米兰达警告(Miranda Warning/Miranda rights)

[复制链接]
315 1
米兰达警告(英语:Miranda Warning、Miranda rights),又譯米兰达忠告、米兰达告诫、米兰达公约或米兰达宣言,是指美国警察(包括检察官)根据美国联邦最高法院在1966年米兰达诉亚利桑那州案(384 U.S. 436 (1966))一案的判例来确立的规则。在讯问刑事案件嫌疑人之前,警察必须明白无误地告知嫌疑人有权援引宪法第五修正案,即刑事案件嫌疑犯有「不被强迫自証其罪的特权」,有权行使沉默权和要求得到律师协助的权利。

雖然有關警告源自美國,但由於証供的可信性在普通法系的法庭非常重要,這項警告對司法過程產生了重要影響。一方面,這項聲明確保了證供的可信性;另一方面,這項聲明也保證避免疑犯屈打成招。因此,現時世界上採用普通法系的地區都吸納了這項警告的精神,以保障被扣押人士的權利及司法的公正。歐洲自1996年 John Murray v. the United Kingdom 案後,已數度表示緘默權及不自證己罪權利乃是國際普遍認可的準則,也是歐洲人權公約第6條所闡述的公正審判理念之核心內容。現在[何时?],實行大陸法系的部分亞洲、歐洲國家也逐漸採用米蘭達規則,要求執法人員必須對嫌犯宣讀這段警告。

警告示例

米兰达告诫的英文原文如下:

You have the right to remain silent. 你有权保持沉默。

Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. 否则你所说的一切都可以在法庭上作为指控你的不利证据。

You have the right to talk to a lawyer and have him present while you are questioned. 审问之前,你有权与律师谈话、得到律师的帮助和建议。 受审时,你也有权让律師在场。

If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you before questioning, if you wish one.如果你想聘請律師但負擔不起,法庭可遵照你的意愿,為你指定一位律師。


相关判例

米兰达诉亚利桑那州案

1963年,美国人米兰达(Ernesto Arturo Miranda,部分文献译为埃内斯托·阿图罗·米兰达,小学教育水平)因涉嫌对一名18岁的菲尼克斯女性居民抢劫、绑架和强奸而被当地警察逮捕。他在警局接受了两个小时的讯问,並在一份自白书上签名。之后进行了非常简短的审判,法庭根据米兰达的供词而判其有罪。

其后美國公民自由聯盟接受了米兰达的委托,并进行了上诉,声称米兰达的供述是伪造和受到胁迫的,其在讯问前未能知晓自己有不被强迫自证其罪的特权,而且警察也未进行告知。1966年首席大法官厄爾·沃倫在联邦最高法院作出裁决(5 v. 4,Harlan, Stewart, White,Clark大法官附上了异议),确认米兰达在接受讯问以前有权知道自己的宪法第五修正案权利,而且警察有义务向嫌疑人告知自己的权利,之后才能讯问。最高法院将该案发回重审。随后,法院重新选择了陪审员和案件证据,而且米兰达之前的“证言”不再作为证据使用。在重審过程中,米兰达的女友作为证人出庭,并且提供了对米兰达不利的证词和证据。米兰达再次被判有罪,入狱11年。

1972年,米兰达获假释出狱。出獄之後,他開始販賣親筆簽名的「米蘭達」警告小卡,一張 $1.5元。[3] 1976年,米兰达在酒吧的一次斗殴事件中受到刺殺而身亡。警察逮捕了一位嫌疑犯。警方向嫌疑犯传达了“米兰达警告”以后,嫌疑犯选择保持沉默。警察无法得到其他更有力的证据,结果没有人被起诉。

联邦最高法院在裁决中并未提供警察和检察官在传达“米兰达警告”时所用的措辞,但给出了必须遵守的方针和指引:“怀疑有罪的人在受到讯问之前,必须清楚地被告知自己有保持沉默的权利,并且自己所说的每一句话都将成为在法庭上对自己不利的证据;必须被清楚地告知自己有权得到律师的协助,并且有权要求律师在场;如果自己因为贫困而请不起律师,法院将免费提供一位律师。”

一个典型的“米兰达警告”会是这样的措辞:

你有权保持沉默。如果你开口说话,那么你所说的每一句话都將作為呈堂證供。你有权请律师,并可要求在讯问的过程中有律师在场。如果你请不起律师,我们将免费为你提供一位律师。在讯问的过程中,你可随时要求行使这些权利,不回答问题或者不作出任何陈述。

其后的判例要求米兰达警告必须是明白无误的(meaningful),所以嫌疑犯通常会被询问是否已经明白自己的权利。有些情况下,必须坚定地回答“是”,而且嫌疑犯保持沉默不表示自动放弃权利。如果嫌疑犯英语水平不足,而且实施逮捕的人员未能将米兰达警告以嫌疑犯的母语传达给他,那么之后的供词不能采纳为证据。

同样,由于嫌犯教育水平不同,警官必须确保嫌疑犯能够理解警官所说的话,因此根据嫌疑犯的理解水平来适当表达米兰达警告显得十分必要。在司法实践中,只有把这种适当的表述记录在纸上或者录音,一份原始的放弃权利的证书才会许可采用并视为有效。在另一些司法实践中,未成年人在没有父母或者监护人在场的情况下保持沉默的权利同样被引申出来。

印地安纳州和一些其他的少数州加上了一句话,「我们不会提供给你一名律师,但是如果你被起诉,那么在你被起诉时,我们将会为你指定一位。」尽管这个句子对于少数几个倒霉的外行来说有点模糊和不明确(是指if and when you go to court)—他们可能会并且已经把它理解为“直到你坦白并且在法庭上被传讯,才能请律师”—联邦最高法院已经同意在这些州将这句话作为对这个程序(米兰达警告)的一个精确描述。(达克沃斯诉依根案(Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195 (1989)))

很多州(例如加利福尼亚州)在警告中加了一句话:

你理解我刚才向你宣读的这些权利了吗?在了解这些权利的前提下,你愿意向我坦白吗?

如果嫌犯对两个问题的回答都是「是」(yes),那么意味着嫌犯自动放弃权利;如果嫌犯对第一个问题的回答是「不」(no),那么执法人員一定要重复一遍米兰达警告;如果嫌犯对第二个问题的回答是「不」(no),那么嫌犯援引了(invoke)他的权利。上述情况下,直到权利被免除(waive)前,执法官不可以审问嫌犯。

在警察系统,一般是让嫌疑人阅读印有米兰达警告和相关权利提示的卡片,并要求其在阅读并理解之后签字。总之,政府(警察和检察官)一方有责任证明,嫌疑人是明知和明智地放弃了不自证其罪和得到律师协助的权利。


延伸閱讀
  • Coldrey, J. (1990) "The Right to Silence Reassessed" 74 Victorian Bar News 25.
  • Coldrey, J. (1991) "The Right to Silence: Should it be curtailed or abolished?", 20 Anglo-American Law Review 51.
  • "Rehnquist's legacy"The Economist. July 2–8, 2005. p. 28.
  • Stevenson, N. (1982) "Criminal Cases in the NSW District Court: A Pilot Study" In J. Basten, M. Richardson, C. Ronalds and G. Zdenkowski (eds.), The Criminal Injustice System Sydney: Australian Legal Workers Group (NSW) and Legal Service Bulletin.
  • "The Miranda Warning." – The U.S. Constitution Online. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 Nov. 2012.
墨攻

1 个评论

坤FL 实名认证  版块管理  2019-6-13 15:29:17  | 显示全部楼层
The Miranda Warning

The Constitution reserves many rights for those suspected of crime. One of the fears of the Framers was that the government could act however it wished by simply saying an individual was a suspected criminal. Many of the rights in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, such as habeas corpus, the right to remain silent, and the right to an attorney, are designed to ensure that those accused of a crime are assured of those rights.

Police were able to take advantage of the fact that not everyone knows their rights by heart. In fact, it is likely that most citizens could name a few of their rights as accused criminals, but not all of them. The police's position was that if the accused, for example, spoke about a crime without knowing that they did not need to, that it was the person's fault for not invoking that right, even if they did not know, or did not remember, that they had that right.

This was the crux of the issue in Miranda v Arizona. In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was accused of kidnapping and raping an 18-year-old, mildly retarded woman. He was brought in for questioning, and confessed to the crime. He was not told that he did not have to speak or that he could have a lawyer present. At trial, Miranda's lawyer tried to get the confession thrown out, but the motion was denied. In 1966, the case came in front of the Supreme Court. The Court ruled that the statements made to the police could not be used as evidence, since Miranda had not been advised of his rights.

Since then, before any pertinent questioning of a suspect is done, the police have been required to recite the Miranda warning. The statement, reproduced below, exists in several forms, but all have the key elements: the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. These are also often referred to as the "Miranda rights." When you have been read your rights, you are said to have been "Mirandized."

Note that one need not be Mirandized to be arrested. There is a difference between being arrested and being questioned. Also, basic questions, such as name, address, and Social Security number do not need to be covered by a Miranda warning. The police also need not Mirandize someone who is not a suspect in a crime.

As for Ernesto Miranda, his conviction was thrown out, though he did not become a free man. The police had other evidence that was independent of the confession, and when Miranda was tried a second time, he was convicted again. After release from prison, Miranda was killed in a barroom brawl in 1976.

The following is a minimal Miranda warning, as outlined in the Miranda v Arizona case.

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense.

The following is a much more verbose Miranda warning, designed to cover all bases that a detainee might encounter while in police custody. A detainee may be asked to sign a statement acknowledging the following.

You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions. Do you understand?

Anything you do say may be used against you in a court of law. Do you understand?

You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future. Do you understand?

If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. Do you understand?

If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney. Do you understand?

Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?

LINK:http://www.usconstitution.net/miranda.html
墨攻
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 人工申请

本版积分规则

研究报告

更多

社区同学

更多

客服中心

Admin@tjrzzl.com 周一至周日 10:00-22:00 仅收市话费

关注我们

  • 加入QQ群组
  • 关注官方微信
关于我们
关于我们
友情链接
联系我们
帮助中心
运营理念
注册说明
获取硬币
服务说明
社区规范
免责声明
账户安全
关注我们
官方微博
官方空间
官方微信
快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表