Case law, also used interchangeably with
common law, is a
law that is based on
precedents, that is the
judicial decisions from previous cases, rather than law based on
constitutions,
statutes, or
regulations. Case law uses the detailed facts of a
legal case that have been resolved by
courts or similar
tribunals. These past decisions are called "case law", or precedent. Stare decisis—a Latin phrase meaning "let the decision stand"—is the principle by which judges are bound to such past decisions, drawing on established judicial authority to formulate their positions. (
Full article...)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was a
landmark decision of the
U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that
law enforcement in the United States must warn a person of their constitutional rights before
interrogating them, or else the person's statements cannot be used as
evidence at their
trial. Specifically, the Court held that under the
Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the government cannot use a person's statements made in response to an interrogation while in police custody as evidence at the person's criminal trial unless they can show that the person was informed of the right to consult with a
lawyer before and during questioning, and of the right against
self-incrimination before police questioning, and that the defendant not only understood these rights but also voluntarily waived them before answering questions.
Miranda was viewed by many as a radical change in American criminal law, since the Fifth Amendment was traditionally understood only to protect Americans against formal types of compulsion to confess, such as threats of
contempt of court. It has had a significant impact on law enforcement in the United States, by making what became known as the
Miranda warning part of routine police procedure to ensure that suspects were informed of their rights, which would become known as "Miranda rights". The concept of "Miranda warnings" quickly caught on across American law enforcement agencies, who came to call the practice "Mirandizing".
Pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court decision
Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010), criminal suspects who are aware of their right to silence and to an attorney but choose not to "unambiguously" invoke them, may find any subsequent voluntary statements treated as an implied waiver of their rights, and used as or as part of evidence. At least one scholar has argued that Thompkins "fully undermined" Miranda. (
Full article...)