This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
This sentence appears in the second paragraph of "Subsequent developments": "Others, such as Jose Suarez, who had confessed to killing his wife and five young children, stabbing them more than a hundred times, were released."
I have looked extensively online and can find no reference to this case. The only murderer I found named Suarez is Arturo, not Jose. He killed two male relatives and two children (not a wife and five children) in 1998, and his conviction in 2002 was not overturned because of Miranda.
71.176.206.27 (talk) 03:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)treplag[reply]
This is the edit that added that anecdote to this article. It was sourced to this, a syndicated editorial by James J. Kilpatrick (here published in the Sarasota Journal in 1968), which identifies it as a NY case. I think WP:UNDUEorWP:NPOV might counsel leaving it out regardless of whether Kilpatrick presented the facts correctly because a highly partisan political column is hardly the best source for such material, presented to inflame rather than inform, and if this column is the only source for that story then that throws its veracity as well as its importance into question. No doubt there are academic works that have a more sober and comprehensive assessment of the effects of Miranda, even if critical. postdlf (talk) 03:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have just added archive links to one external link on Miranda v. Arizona. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
User @Fluffy89502 added the sixth amendment to the "laws applied" section of the info box. They have previously added the same info [[1]] and were subsequently reverted by user @postdlf.
@Postdlf: There are two reasons why the Sixth Amendment about to be apart of the "laws applied" section of the info box. Firstly, the court ruling held that the defendant has a right against self incrimination (the Fifth Amendment) and must be informed of his right to an attorney (the Sixth Amendment). This is an usage of the two amendments in the case. Secondly, in his opinion Chief Justice Earl Warren states, "...the Sixth Amendment, which is never expressly relied on by the Court, but whose judicial precedents turn out to be linchpins of the confession rules announced today." [1], clearly showing that the Sixth amendment was utilized in the decision. This also shows why @postdif likely incorrectly removed it, as the sixth amendment wasn't expressly relied on in discussion of the case. Did I violate any Wikipedia norms? Please tell me on my talk page. ThatSuperNerd (talk) 05:02, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
References
^Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 513 (U.S. 1666) ("...the Sixth Amendment, which is never expressly relied on by the Court, but whose judicial precedents turn out to be linchpins of the confession rules announced today.").
I reverted the opening paragraph, with a minor change, and wanted to explain why.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court which ruled that American law enforcement officers cannot interrogate suspects without first informing them of their rights under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, the Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment prevents prosecutors from using a person's statements made in response to interrogationinpolice custody as evidence at their trial unless they can show that the person was informed of their rights to consult with a lawyer before and during questioning and to remain silent to avoid self-incrimination, and that the defendant not only understood these rights but voluntarily waived them.
Miranda does not prohibit law enforcement officers from interrogating suspects without first informing them of their rights. It pertains only to custodial interrogation, so it has no application whatsoever to interrogation in other contexts. Also, it relates to the use of statements elicited through interrogation (and possibly the fruit of the interrogation) in court, and does not actually serve to restrict the conduct of officers.
Also, while a Miranda violation will prevent the use of a custodial statement elicited through interrogation where the suspect was not warned, it is possible that the statement will nonetheless be admissible in court, for example for purposes of impeachment if the defendant testifies and the defendant's testimony materially departs from the statement. Arllaw (talk) 07:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Arllaw: The custodial distinction is unhelpful and unnecessarily pedantic for the purposes of a lead sentence. It's not like there's some defendant who is going to move to suppress on the basis of a lead sentence on Wikipedia. It is not our duty to be that precise, as WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOLEGAL exemplify. The same thing applies to the objections about the use of such confessions to impeach: this is Wikipedia, not Barbri. The elements of an optimal lead sentence and lead in general are described at MOS:FIRST and MOS:LEAD. White Whirlwind 05:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You may think that accurate recitation of the law is "unhelpful and unnecessarily pedantic", but that does not justify the introduction of error into the article. If you want to rephrase the lead to make it better while keeping it accurate, by all means do so. But if you find it unduly difficult to revise the lead in a manner that leaves it both correct and accurate, I would suggest that you leave the editing of the lead to others. Arllaw (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the consensus, then so be it. But given Arllaw's snipe, allow me one parting shot in return. Reliance on ipse dixit assertions and pedantry over reference to the established policies here isn't going to help us in the long run goal of building a high-quality encyclopedia for an educated but non-expert audience. There's a reason most of our most visible WP:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases articles were in a shabby state up until a few years ago, when I started working on them. White Whirlwind 06:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you want help from other editors in revising the lead to be more clear, while avoiding error, one possibility would be to post your proposal here for comment. It is not constructive to insult other editors or question their motives, so perhaps that can stop now. Arllaw (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is not constructive to insult other editors or question their motives
I agree wholeheartedly. I also agree that a request for comments would be helpful and will do so, though perhaps not today (I'm a bit busy in real life). White Whirlwind 23:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The description of the case that has been added to the article reflects what Vega holds, which is that a person has no basis in federal civil law to recover money damage for a violation of their Miranda rights. Miranda involves the creation of an exclusionary rule within the context of criminal law and procedure. As the article notes, a number of court decisions have narrowed that right and now eliminated a separate potential remedy for violation, but that is different from reversal in part or in whole. Arllaw (talk) 23:43, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AsMiranda v. Arizona states that "The requirement of warnings and waiver of rights is a fundamental with respect to the Fifth Amendment" and Vega v. Tekoh states that "a violation of Miranda is not itself a violation of the Fifth Amendment," it is fair to say that Vega v. Tekoh did partialy overturn Miranda v. Arizona.
I agree with Arllaw and disagree with The Radioactive Box. First, whether or not a decision overrules another decision is often a complicated legal question whose sorting out involves expert legal analysis. Doing that sort of analysis is not appropriate for us as Wikipedia editors, and would constitute WP:Original Research. Second, I disagree with TRB's legal conclusion. Miranda did not hold that it was creating independent due process right(s), or that such right(s) could support § 1983 liability if violated. In my view, Vega did not overrule any of Miranda's holdings. But, as I described in my first reason, whether we think Vega overruled Miranda is irrelevant. What matters is what the reliable sources in the field say. Give it time and wait for legal experts to publish analyses of Vega in reliable secondary sources. White Whirlwind 18:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re last sentence in this section: it is highly questionable to begin the sentence with "According to legal experts the ruling" and then cite someone with no formal legal education . . . putting aside the fact that the opinion expressed is, at best, argumentative and likely untrue (and not supportable, thus not belonging in an encyclopedic entry).Mdifranco (talk) 17:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
References
^"VEGA v. TEKOH"(PDF). Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court of the United States. 23 June 2022. Retrieved 25 June 2022.
I think that the above should redirect to this case, as there is no case by the same name. However, I have no idea how to do it. tomde24 (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
