Lidos para uma pessoa nos EUA quando de sua prisão.

"Decisões Históricas", eJournal USA: Questões de Democracia, abril ...- [ Translate this page ]Em sua decisão a Suprema Corte exigiu que os policiais, ao realizar prisões, devem informar os detidos sobre os chamados Direitos Miranda, segundo os quais ...
usinfo.state.gov/journals/itdhr/0405/ijdp/decisions.htm - 26k




--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 6 mins (2008-01-07 15:40:42 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

OU MELHOR

DIREITOS MIRANDA

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 18 mins (2008-01-07 15:52:38 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

O termo correto usado aqui nos EUA é Direitos Miranda (Miranda Rights). Não se usa Miranda warning, pois tratam-se de direitos, todo cidadão sendo preso, e não de uma advertência propriamente dita.


Miranda rights - direitos Miranda (direitos constitucionais dos ...- [ Translate this page ](KudoZ) English to Portuguese translation of Miranda rights: direitos Miranda (direitos constitucionais dos detidos) [Law (general)].
www.proz.com/kudoz/754356 - 44k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

miranda rights - direitas do miranda (English to Portuguese ...SUMMARY OF ALL PORTUGUESE TRANSLATIONS PROVIDED. 5 +1, Norma do Direito Processual, Lumen. 4 -1, direitas do miranda, LetSpeak.com ...
www.proz.com/kudoz/126227 - 31k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Universo Jurídico- [ Translate this page ]A Williams, então, leram-se os direitos Miranda e dois policiais de Des Moines trouxeram-no de volta. Os agentes de polícia decidiram não interrogar ou ...
www.uj.com.br/publicacoes/doutrinas/default.asp?action=dout... - 35k




--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr (2008-01-07 17:17:49 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

I have been unable to find the complete Miranda warning translation into Portugese (or, for that matter, to any other language other than Spanish) online. Could someone provide it or point me to a site which has it?

Não consegui achar a tradução completa para o português (ou, para qualquer outro idioma a não ser o espanhol), dos Direitos Miranda , online. Alguém poderia provê-la ou me indicar um sítio (site) onde posso achá-la?

Quase você esteja interessado na tradução completa.

There are many versions of the reading of the rights. Most are very basic and simple, but some police officers read a lengthier version. I cannot find a translation on teh web, but this is essentially the basic version:

"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to you. Do you understand your rights?"

"Você tem o direito de permanecer em silêncio. Qualquer coisa que diga, pode e vai ser usada contra você. Você tem direito a ter um advogado. Se você não estiver em condições de pagar um advogado, um advogado será disponibilizado. Entendeu estes diretos seus?"



--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs (2008-01-07 19:01:22 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

El ultimo derecho deberia de ser DIREITO (y no direto).

Miranda Rule

[WARNINGS] the requirement that a person receive certain warnings relating to his privilege against self-incrimination (right to remain silent) and his right to the presence and advice of an attorney before any custodial interrogation by law enforcement authorities takes place. The actual rule was enunciated in Miranda v. Arizona: "[t]he prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. As for the procedural safeguards to be employed, unless other fully effective means are devised to inform accused persons of their right of silence and to assure a continuous opportunity to exercise it, the following measures are required. Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. If, however, he indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process that he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking there can be no questioning. Likewise, if the individual is alone and indicates in any manner that he does not wish to be interrogated, the police may not question him. The mere fact that he may have answered some questions or volunteered some statements on his own does not deprive him of the right to refrain from answering any further inquiries until he has consulted with an attorney and thereafter consents to be questioned." 384 U.S. 436, 444-45. An explicit statement of waiver of rights is not always necessary to support a finding of waiver; waiver can be inferred from the circumstances of the interrogation. 441 U.S. 369.

Unless being used to cross-examine the defendant, 401 U.S. 222, statements and evidence obtained in violation of this rule are not admissible in the defendant's criminal trial and are grounds for federal constitutional challenge to any conviction obtained thereby.

Miranda Warnings

In one of its most famous decisions, the Warren Court required police to advise criminal suspects of particular constitutional rights prior to interrogation. These Miranda warnings consisted of four items: (1) the right to remain silent; (2) the reminder that anything said could be used against the suspect; (3) the right to counsel; and (4) the related reminder that counsel would be provided for indigents.

Miranda warnings apply when suspects are in police custody and under interrogation. In decisions subsequent to Miranda, the Court has emphasized that custody consists of the restriction of freedom of movement by police. This can occur in one's home (Orozco v. Texas, 1969), or in jail on an unrelated offense (Mathis v. United States, 1968). Public safety concerns, however, constitute an exemption to this requirement as the Court emphasized in New York v. Quarles (1984) when it ruled that emergency circumstances (e.g., the officer's immediate protection) do not require Miranda warnings, even if these situations could be describe as interrogations. Suspects who voluntarily go to a police station are not entitled to Miranda warnings unless arrested and drivers who are stopped by police for a routine traffic violation are also not entitled to Miranda warnings (California v. Beheler, 1983, and Berkemer v. McCarty, 1984).

Under Miranda, an interrogation exists whenever police reasonably expect that a suspect is likely to offer incriminating information (Rhode Island v. Innis, 1980). Although most interrogations are carried out by law enforcement officers, some psychiatric examinations (e.g., those related to competency to stand trial) constitute interrogations (Estelle v. Smith, 1981). Grand jury proceedings, however, are not included (United States v. Wong, 1977). Witnesses in grand jury proceedings may, of course, assert their Fifth Amendment privilege against self‐incrimination, but they do not need to be advised of these rights in Miranda fashion. Some lower courts have applied Miranda to grand jury proceedings in a departure from this pattern, but the majority do not, citing United States v. Dionisio (1973) where the Court argued that grand jury subpoenas are not unreasonable searches and seizures in the context of the Fourth Amendment and, therefore, not custodial in Fifth Amendment terms.

Related to the scope of interrogation are more subtle means of eliciting incriminating information from criminal defendants. In 1977 the Supreme Court concluded that police comments to each other in the presence of a suspect could be designed to elicit incriminating evidence (Brewer v. Williams). In this decision, however, the Court relied more on Sixth Amendment right to counsel protection than the Fifth Amendment privilege against self‐incrimination. Several states filed amicus briefs in the Brewer case and explicitly asked the Court to overrule its decision in Miranda. A similar issue was raised in a 1987 case where the Court accepted a tape‐recorded conversation between a couple suspected of murdering their son where the husband had been advised of his Miranda rights but the wife initiated the conversation (Arizona v. Mauro, 1987).

Another question related to Miranda warnings is the admissibility of evidence obtained in involuntary physical tests. In Schmerber v. California (1966), the Court distinguished testimonial evidence that required Fifth Amendment protection and physical evidence that did not, thereby accepting the admissibility of an involuntary blood test.

Similarly, the Court has considered the degree to which incomplete warnings violate Miranda. In Michigan v. Tucker (1974), the Court upheld a conviction where police failed to advise the suspect that counsel would be provided if he were indigent. This reluctance to require police to warn suspects in an unequivocal manner has been upheld in other decisions. In Duckworth v. Eagan (1989), the Court accepted a confession where police indicated that they did not have any way of providing a lawyer but did assure the defendant that one would be provided if and when he went to court. Although Eagan argued that this set of warnings did not conform to the Court's own precedent (California v. Prysock, 1981), the Court concluded that Miranda warnings did not have to be issued in an exact form and that police were not obligated to produce defense lawyers “on call.”

In Miranda, the Court acknowledged that criminal defendants could waive their Miranda rights and talk to police. Questions about police judgments that a defendant voluntarily offered information, however, remain. In the 1994 decision, Davis v. United States, for example, the Court concluded that a suspect's comment that “maybe I should talk to a lawyer” did not constitute a request for an attorney under the Miranda warnings requirement. Moreover, in a series of cases the Court has ruled that a written waiver form is not essential (North Carolina v. Butler, 1979), that a waiver cannot be presumed from the suspect's failure to complain after warning (Tague v. Louisiana, 1980), that the suspect does not have to be notified of the specific offense under investigation (Colorado v. Spring, 1987), that a post‐warning waiver is not invalidated by a pre‐warning confession (Oregon v. Elstad, 1985), and that all the ramifications of a waiver need to be appreciated by the suspect for constitutional validity (Moran v. Burbine, 1986).

The Court has also ruled on the conditions that may render a suspect's confession and waiver of Miranda invalid. For example, mental illness on the part of a defendant who confessed to police in the absence of coercion does not invalidate a confession (Colorado v. Connelly, 1986), but the confessions of injured suspects on medication and in severe pain who are questioned in the hospital should be excluded (Beecher v. Alabama, 1972, and Mincey v. Arizona, 1978). So general are the Court's waiver standards that suspects who explicitly refuse to offer a written statement without counsel may be regarded as having waived their Miranda rights (Connecticut v. Barrett, 1987).

During the 2004 term, the U.S. Supreme Court considered the applicability of Miranda to juveniles. Of central interest in Yarborough Warden v. Alvarado, was the use at trial of testimony obtained in a two‐hour interview that police in Los Angeles conducted with a seventeen‐year‐old who was implicated in an attempted robbery and murder case. At trial, Alvarado moved to suppress the interview on the grounds that no Miranda warnings were issued, a claim unchallenged by the prosecution. The trial court and the state appellate court concluded that Alvarado was not in custody at the time of the interview, citing Thompson v. Keohane. The Ninth Circuit reversed in Alvarado v. Hickman, took issue with the application of the custody test, and called particular attention to Alvarado's youth and inexperience. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit ruling and concluded that Alvarado was not in custody for purposes of Miranda and that the trial court's application of the custody test was not unreasonable.

One of the most important questions related to the continued validity of Miranda is the indirect use of information obtained in violation of the warning requirement. In 1971 the Burger Court concluded that statements made in violation of Miranda could be used to impeach the credibility of the defendant if s/he took the stand in his/her own defense. This decision in Harris v. New York has sometimes been described as a “back‐door” reversal of the famous 1966 precedent. However, the U.S. Supreme Court continues to uphold the constitutionality of the Court's famous 1966 decision and the warnings requirement that it set out. An appropriate illustration is the 2000 decision in Dickerson v. United States where the Court rejected a 1999 Fourth Circuit ruling that upheld the admissibility of a voluntary confession in the face of an acknowledged failure of police to issue Miranda warnings. In this decision, the Court emphasized, among other arguments, that “the (Miranda) warnings have become part of our national culture.”

http://www.answers.com/miranda rights&r=67

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day8 hrs (2008-01-09 00:17:54 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Miranda rights
A CBP officer reading the Miranda rights to a suspect.
Enlarge
A CBP officer reading the Miranda rights to a suspect.

The Supreme Court did not specify the exact wording to be used when informing a suspect of his or her rights. However, the Court did create a set of guidelines which must be followed. The ruling states:


“ ...The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he or she has the right to remain silent, and that anything the person says may be used against that person in court; the person must be clearly informed that he or she has the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present during questioning, and that, if he or she is indigent, an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent him or her. ”

As a result, American English has acquired the verb Mirandize, meaning to read to a suspect his or her Miranda rights (when that suspect is taken into custody for the purpose of questioning).[2]

Notably, the Miranda rights do not have to be read in any particular order, and they do not have to precisely match the language of the Miranda decision, as long as they are adequately and fully conveyed. California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355 (1981).

Typical usage

Though every U.S. jurisdiction has its own regulations regarding what, precisely, must be said to a person when they are arrested or placed in a custodial situation, the typical warning is as follows:


“ 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 have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. ”

The courts have since ruled that the warning must be "meaningful", so it is usually required that the suspect be asked if he understands his rights. Sometimes, firm answers of "yes" are required. An arrestee's silence is not a waiver. Evidence has been ruled inadmissible because of an arrestee's poor knowledge of English and the failure of arresting officers to provide the warning in the arrestee's language.

Also because of various education levels, officers must make sure the suspect understands what the officer is saying. It may be necessary to "translate" to the suspect's level of understanding. Courts have ruled this admissible as long as the original waiver is said and the "translation" is recorded either on paper or on tape.

The right of a juvenile to remain silent without his or her parent or guardian present is provided in some jurisdictions.

Some departments in New Jersey, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Alaska add the following sentence:


“ We have no way of giving you a lawyer, but one will be appointed for you, if you wish, if and when you go to court. ”

Even though this sentence can be somewhat ambiguous to some hapless laypersons — who can, and who have, interpreted it to mean that "you will not get a lawyer until you confess and are arraigned in court" — the U.S. Supreme Court has approved of it as an accurate description of the procedure in those states. Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195 (1989) (upholding use of sentence by Hammond, Indiana police).

In border states, including Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, suspects who are not United States citizens are given an additional warning:


“ If you are not a United States citizen, you may contact your country's consulate prior to any questioning. ”

California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania also add the following questions:


“ Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me? ”

A "yes" answer to both completes the waiver. A "no" to either invokes the right. Once Miranda rights have been invoked, and a suspect then remains silent, the prosecutor cannot punish him for exercising his Miranda rights by commenting on his silence at trial and insinuating that it amounted to an implicit admission of guilt. Wainwright v. Greenfield , 474 U.S. 284 (1986).

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day8 hrs (2008-01-09 00:20:59 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Miranda rights
A CBP officer reading the Miranda rights to a suspect.
Enlarge
A CBP officer reading the Miranda rights to a suspect.

The Supreme Court did not specify the exact wording to be used when informing a suspect of his or her rights. However, the Court did create a set of guidelines which must be followed. The ruling states:


“ ...The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he or she has the right to remain silent, and that anything the person says may be used against that person in court; the person must be clearly informed that he or she has the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present during questioning, and that, if he or she is indigent, an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent him or her. ”

As a result, American English has acquired the verb Mirandize, meaning to read to a suspect his or her Miranda rights (when that suspect is taken into custody for the purpose of questioning).[2]

Notably, the Miranda rights do not have to be read in any particular order, and they do not have to precisely match the language of the Miranda decision, as long as they are adequately and fully conveyed. California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355 (1981).

Typical usage

Though every U.S. jurisdiction has its own regulations regarding what, precisely, must be said to a person when they are arrested or placed in a custodial situation, the typical warning is as follows:


“ 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 have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. ”

The courts have since ruled that the warning must be "meaningful", so it is usually required that the suspect be asked if he understands his rights. Sometimes, firm answers of "yes" are required. An arrestee's silence is not a waiver. Evidence has been ruled inadmissible because of an arrestee's poor knowledge of English and the failure of arresting officers to provide the warning in the arrestee's language.

Also because of various education levels, officers must make sure the suspect understands what the officer is saying. It may be necessary to "translate" to the suspect's level of understanding. Courts have ruled this admissible as long as the original waiver is said and the "translation" is recorded either on paper or on tape.

The right of a juvenile to remain silent without his or her parent or guardian present is provided in some jurisdictions.

Some departments in New Jersey, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Alaska add the following sentence:


“ We have no way of giving you a lawyer, but one will be appointed for you, if you wish, if and when you go to court. ”

Even though this sentence can be somewhat ambiguous to some hapless laypersons — who can, and who have, interpreted it to mean that "you will not get a lawyer until you confess and are arraigned in court" — the U.S. Supreme Court has approved of it as an accurate description of the procedure in those states. Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195 (1989) (upholding use of sentence by Hammond, Indiana police).

In border states, including Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, suspects who are not United States citizens are given an additional warning:


“ If you are not a United States citizen, you may contact your country's consulate prior to any questioning. ”

California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania also add the following questions:


“ Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me? ”

A "yes" answer to both completes the waiver. A "no" to either invokes the right. Once Miranda rights have been invoked, and a suspect then remains silent, the prosecutor cannot punish him for exercising his Miranda rights by commenting on his silence at trial and insinuating that it amounted to an implicit admission of guilt. Wainwright v. Greenfield , 474 U.S. 284 (1986).

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1797 days (2012-12-09 07:54:25 GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------

"every U.S. jurisdiction has its own regulations regarding what, precisely, must be said to a person when they are arrested or placed in a custodial situation,"..therefore the asker should give the version of the Miranda Rights for which he is requesting a translation