|
The right to silence is a legal protection enjoyed by people undergoing police interrogation or trial in certain countries. The law is either explicit or recognized in many legal systems. Image File history File links Scale_of_justice. ...
Criminal procedure refers to the legal process for adjudicating claims that someone has violated the criminal law. ...
An arrest warrant is a warrant issued by a public officer which authorizes the arrest and detention of an individual. ...
A search warrant is a written warrant issued by a judge which authorizes the police to conduct a search of a person or location for evidence of a criminal offense. ...
In United States criminal law, probable cause refers to the standard by which a police officer may make an arrest, conduct a personal or property search or obtain a warrant. ...
A knock and announce warrant, in the American law of criminal procedure, requires that the officer tasked with the responsibility of executing the warrant must knock on the door of the home to be entered for a search or arrest, and to announce their purpose. ...
An exigent circumstance, in the American law of criminal procedure, allows law enforcement to enter a structure without a warrant, or if a they have a knock and announce warrant, without knocking and waiting for refusal under certain circumstances. ...
I love this law whereby police, who suspect that a crime has been committed, do a search of a persons property and confiscate any relevant evidence to the crime. ...
The Chicago Police Department arrests a man A protester is arrested during a demonstration. ...
The Miranda warning is a police warning that must be given to criminal suspects in police custody in the United States before they can be asked questions relating to the commission of crimes. ...
A grand jury is a type of common law jury responsible for investigating alleged crimes, examining evidence, and issuing indictments if they believe that there is enough evidence for a trial to proceed. ...
Criminal procedure refers to the legal process for adjudicating claims that someone has violated the criminal law. ...
A statute of limitations is a statute in a common law legal system setting forth the maximum period of time, after certain events, that legal proceedings based on those events may begin. ...
A bill of attainder (also known as an act or writ of attainder) was an act of legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime, and punishing them, without benefit of a trial. ...
An ex post facto law (from the Latin for from something done afterward) or retroactive law (or retrospective law) is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts committed or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law. ...
Criminal jurisdiction is a term used in the law of criminal procedure to describe the power of a court to hear a case brought by the state accusing a criminal defendant of a violation of the law of the geographic area in which the court is located. ...
An inquisitorial system is a legal system where the court or a part of the court is actively involved in determining the facts of the case, as opposed to an adversarial system where the role of the court is solely that of an impartial referee between parties. ...
The adversarial system (or adversary system) of law is the system of law, generally adopted in common law countries, that relies on the skill of the different advocates representing their partys positions and not on some neutral party, usually the judge, trying to ascertain the truth of the case. ...
Arraignment is a common law term for the formal reading of a criminal complaint, in the presence of the defendant, to inform him of the charges against him. ...
In the common law legal system, an indictment is a formal charge of having committed a serious criminal offence. ...
In both criminal and civil trials in the United States, a plea of nolo contendere means that the defendant neither admits nor disputes the charge. ...
A plea bargain is an agreement in a criminal case in which a prosecutor and a defendant arrange to settle the case against the defendant. ...
Headline text The rights of the accused is a class of rights in that apply to a person in the time period between when they are formally accused of a crime and when they are either convicted or acquitted. ...
The Right to a fair trial is an essential right in all countries respecting the rule of law. ...
Presumption of innocence is a legal right that the accused enjoys in criminal trials in many modern nations. ...
A jury trial is a trial in which the judge of the facts, as opposed to the judge of the law, is a jury, made up of citizens who are usually randomly selected and are generally not legal professionals. ...
In criminal law, the right to a speedy trial can be used as either a procedural defense or a substantive defense in which a defendant argues that they should not be held criminally liable for actions which broke the law, because the prosecuting attorney failed to bring the case to...
For alternative meanings of habeas corpus, see habeas corpus (disambiguation). ...
Traditionally, bail is some form of property deposited or pledged to a court in order to persuade it to release a suspect from jail, on the understanding that the suspect will return for trial or forfeit the bail (skipping bail, or jumping bail, is also illegal). ...
In United States constitutional law, the exclusionary rule is a legal principle holding that evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the U.S. Constitution is not admissible for a criminal prosecution in a court of law (that is, it cannot be used in a criminal trial). ...
It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with Right to silence. ...
Double jeopardy (also called autrefois acquit meaning already acquitted) is a procedural defense (and, in many countries such as the United States, Canada and India, a constitutional right) that forbids a defendant from being tried a second time for a crime, after having already been tried for the same crime. ...
In law, a verdict indicates the judgment of a case before a court of law. ...
In law, a sentence forms the final act of a judge-ruled process, and also the symbolic principal act connected to his function. ...
In criminal law, an acquittal is the legal result of a verdict of not guilty, or some similar end of the proceeding that terminates it with prejudice without a verdict of guilty being entered against the accused. ...
A mandatory sentence is a judicial decision setting the punishment to be inflicted on a person convicted of a crime where judicial discretion is limited by law. ...
A suspended sentence is a legal construct. ...
Parole can have different meanings depending on the context. ...
Probation is the suspension of a prison or jail sentence - the criminal who is on probation has been convicted of a crime, but instead of serving prison time, has been found by the Court to be amenable to probation and will be returned to the community for a period in...
Under British criminal law, a tariff is the minimum period that a person serving an indefinite prison sentence must serve before that person becomes eligible for parole. ...
Life licence is a term used in the British criminal justice system for the conditions under which a prisoner sentenced to life in jail may be released. ...
In the Canadian legal system, the Dangerous Offender designation allows the courts to impose an indefinite sentence on a convicted person, regardless of whether the crime carries a life sentence or not. ...
The statement that the government shall not inflict cruel and unusual punishment for crimes is found in the English Bill of Rights signed in 1689 by William of Orange and Queen Mary II who were then the joint rulers of England following the Glorious Revolution of 1688. ...
It has been suggested that Capital punishment debate be merged into this article or section, because the split violates the Wikipedia:Content forking guideline. ...
An execution warrant is a warrant which authorizes the execution or capital punishment of an individual. ...
Criminal law (also known as penal law) is the body of common law that punishes criminals for committing offences against the state. ...
The law of evidence governs the use of testimony (eg. ...
Civil procedure is the body of law that sets out the process that courts will follow when hearing cases of a civil nature (a civil action). These rules govern how a lawsuit or case may be commenced, what kind of service of process is required, the types of pleadings or...
Interrogation is the method of interviewing a source used by police and military personnel to obtain information that the source would not otherwise willingly disclose. ...
In legal parlance, a trial is an event in which parties to a dispute present information (in the form of evidence) in a formal setting, usually a court, before a judge, jury, or other designated finder of fact, in order to achieve a resolution to their dispute. ...
The right covers a number of issues centred around the right to refuse to answer questions. This can be the right to avoid self-incrimination or the right to not answer any questions. The right usually includes the provision that adverse comment or inferences cannot be made by the judge or jury about the refusal to answer questions before or during a trial or hearing. The right extends from the moment of suspension of freedom of movement (which is most often arrest) to the end of the trial. It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with Right to silence. ...
History
Neither the reasons nor the history behind the right to silence are entirely clear. The Latin maxim nemo tenetur seipsum accusare ('no man is bound to accuse himself') became a rallying cry for religious and political dissidents who were prosecuted in the infamous Star Chamber and High Commission of 16th century England. People coming before these tribunals were forced to swear the ex officio oath by which they swore to truthfully answer the questions to be put before them without knowing what they were being accused of. This created what has been termed the cruel trilemma whereby these accused faced the prospect of either perjury (which was believed to be a mortal sin), harsh punishment for contempt of court or betraying their "natural" duty of self-preservation. After the parliamentary revolutions of the late 1600s, according to some historical accounts, the right to silence became established in the law as a reaction of the people to the excesses of the royal inquisitions in these courts. The Star Chamber was an English court of law at the royal Palace of Westminster that began sessions in 1487 and ended them in 1641 when the court itself was abolished. ...
A High Commissioner is a person serving in a special executive capacity. ...
Royal motto (French): Dieu et mon droit (Translated: God and my right) Englands location (dark green) within the British Isles Languages English (de facto) Capital London de facto Largest city London Area – Total Ranked 1st UK 130,395 km² Population – Total (mid-2004) – Total (2001 Census) – Density Ranked 1st...
This page includes English translations of several Latin phrases and abbreviations such as . ...
However the right to silence was not a practical reality in the English courts for centuries after that time. With no access to legal counsel, a shifting standard of proof and a system generally distrustful of silent defendants, a criminal accused who remained silent was committing figurative or literal suicide. Following the American Revolution and the enshrining of the right in the fifth amendment, the right became increasingly entrenched in common law legal systems across the world as other countries followed the rapidly developing jurisprudence in the US. The right to counsel, which also became increasingly entrenched following the American Revolution, gave defendants a practical method of mounting a defence while remaining silent and the development of the modern police force in the early 1800s opened up the question of pre-trial silence for the first time. The key American case of Bram v. United States paved the way for the right to be extended to pre-trial questioning and the practice of warnings became established in the US and elsewhere following the case of Miranda v. Arizona in 1966. The American Revolution was a revolution that ended two centuries of rule of the Thirteen Colonies by the British Empire and created the modern United States of America. ...
Amendment V (the Fifth Amendment) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, is related to legal procedure. ...
This article concerns the common-law legal system, as contrasted with the civil law legal system; for other meanings of the term, within the field of law, see common law (disambiguation). ...
For the band, see The Police. ...
The Miranda warning is a police warning that must be given to criminal suspects in police custody in the United States before they can be asked questions relating to the commission of crimes. ...
Holding The fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination requires law enforcement officials to advise a suspect interrogated in custody of his rights to remain silent and to obtain an attorney. ...
While initially alien to inquisitorial justice systems, the right spread across continental Europe, in some form, throughout the late 20th century due to developments in international law which saw an increasing universalisation of certain due process protections. As an example, the right is recognised in key international human rights documents such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This article is about the inquisitorial system for organizing court proceedings. ...
To meet Wikipedias quality standards, this article or section may require cleanup. ...
Human rights are rights which some hold to be inalienable and belonging to all humans. ...
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is a United Nations treaty based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, created in 1966. ...
Worldwide
Australia Australia has no constitutional protection for the right to silence, but it is broadly recognised by State and Federal Crimes Acts and Codes and is regarded by the courts as an important common law right. In general, criminal suspects in Australia have the right to refuse to answer questions posed to them by police before trial and to refuse to take the stand at trial. As a general rule judges cannot direct juries to draw adverse inferences from a defendant's silence (Petty v R) but there are exceptions to this rule, most notably in cases which rely entirely on circumstantial evidence which it is only possible for the defendant to testify about (Weissensteiner v R). The right does not apply to corporations (EPA v Caltex). Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence. ...
There are numerous statutory abrogations of the right, particuarly in the area of bankruptcy. There are also abrogations of the right in recent Federal anti-terrorism and Victorian organised crime Acts. Each of these acts set up coercive questioning regimes which operate outside the normal criminal processes. Direct testimonial evidence gained from this coercive questioning cannot be used in a subsequent criminal trial.
Canada The right to silence is protected under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The right to silence protects an accused from answering questions that may be incriminating from the moment of arrest up until the accused is provided with legal counsel. Outside of this period there is no right to silence, which is distinguished from, and often confused with, the US right which persists after access to councel is given. The leading case on the right to silence is R. v. Hebert, which held that the accused cannot be tricked into divulging any information until they consult with a lawyer. Section Seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects an individuals autonomy and personal legal rights from actions of the government. ...
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a constitutionally entrenched bill of rights which forms part of the Constitution Act, 1982, added to the Constitution of Canada in 1982. ...
R. v. ...
France In France, the Code of Criminal Procedure (art. L116) makes it compulsory that when an investigating judge hears a suspect, he must warn him that he has the right to remain silent, to make a statement, or to answer questions. A person against which suspicions lay cannot legally be interrogated by justice as an ordinary witness.
At the actual trial, a defendant can be compelled to make a statement. However, the code also prohibits hearing a suspect under oath; thus, a suspect may say whatever he feels fit for his defense, without fear of sanction for perjury. This prohibition is extended to the suspect's spouse and members of his close family (this extension of the prohibition may be waived if both the prosecution and the defense counsel agree to the waiver). Perjury is lying or making verifiably false statements under oath or affirmation in a court of law or in any of various sworn statements in writing. ...
Criminal law (also known as penal law) is the body of law that regulates governmental sanctions (such as imprisonment and/or fines) as retaliation for crimes against the social order. ...
United States In the United States, the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution (part of the Bill of Rights) codifies the right to silence. The Supreme Court has ruled that suspects must be told of their rights in what have become known as Miranda warnings. Amendment V (the Fifth Amendment) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, is related to legal procedure. ...
Image of the United States Bill of Rights from the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. ...
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest judicial body in the U.S.. As the highest court, it provides the leadership of the judicial branch of the U.S. federal government. ...
The Miranda warning is a police warning that must be given to criminal suspects in police custody in the United States before they can be asked questions relating to the commission of crimes. ...
However, if the state feels the need, a suspect or subpoenaed grand jury witness may be given a grant of immunity and compelled to give testimony under oath. This is not considered a weakening of the right, but rather a balancing of one individual's rights with the rights of others for a properly functioning justice system. The interplay of local, state, and federal law is also complicated in this area. A grand jury is a type of common law jury responsible for investigating alleged crimes, examining evidence, and issuing indictments if they believe that there is enough evidence for a trial to proceed. ...
England and Wales In England and Wales, the right of suspects to refuse to answer questions before their trial was not codified as Judges' Rules until 1912. Prior to then, while torture had been banned, the 'mistreatment' of silent suspects to induce a confession was common and the refusal to answer questions was used as evidence against them. The intermingling of the investigative and judicial roles was not formally divided until 1848, when the interrogation of suspects was made solely a police matter, with the establishment of the modern police forces. 1912 (MCMXII) was a leap year starting on Monday in the Gregorian calendar (or a leap year starting on Tuesday in the 13-day-slower Julian calendar). ...
Torture is any act by which severe pain, whether physical or psychological, is intentionally inflicted on a person as a means of intimidation, a deterrent, revenge, a punishment, or as a method for the extraction of information or confessions (i. ...
1848 is a leap year starting on Saturday of the Gregorian calendar. ...
The right to silence during actual trial was well established in common law, the defendant was "incompetent" to give evidence and attempts to force answers, such as the efforts of the Star Chamber were judged unlawful - although often later than some individuals may have hoped. Being unable to speak at their own trial, the practice of defendants giving an unsworn statement was introduced and was recognized in law in 1883. Defendants testifying in their own defence was also introduced in the 1880s (and extended to all offences by 1898) although the right to silence was clearly protected. As the right to testify was extended the possibility of unsworn statements was withdrawn. This article concerns the common-law legal system, as contrasted with the civil law legal system; for other meanings of the term, within the field of law, see common law (disambiguation). ...
The Star Chamber was an English court of law at the royal Palace of Westminster that began sessions in 1487 and ended them in 1641 when the court itself was abolished. ...
1883 (MDCCCLXXXIII) was a common year starting on Monday (see link for calendar). ...
// Events and Trends Technology Development and commercial production of electric lighting Development and commercial production of gasoline-powered automobile by Karl Benz, Gottlieb Daimler and Maybach First commercial production and sales of phonographs and phonograph recordings. ...
1898 (MDCCCXCVIII) was a common year starting on Saturday (see link for calendar) of the Gregorian calendar (or a common year starting on Monday of the 12-day-slower Julian calendar). ...
The Judges' Rules, with the inclusion of a caution on arrest of the right to silence, were not taken in by the government until 1978. However the right was already well established by case law as was the necessity of no adverse comments, the principle being that the defendant does not have to prove their innocence - the burden of evidence rests on the prosecution.
However the right to silence "does not denote any single right, but rather refers to a disparate group of immunities, which differ in nature, origin, incidence and importance." (Lord Mustill, R. v. Director of Serious Fraud Office, ex parte Smith (1992)). Lord Mustill identified six rights contained within the umbrella term:
- "(1) A general immunity, possessed by all persons and bodies, from being compelled on pain of punishment to answer questions posed by other persons or bodies.
- (2) A general immunity... from being compelled on pain of punishment to answer questions the answers to which may incriminate them.
- (3) A specific immunity, possessed by all persons under suspicion of criminal responsibility whilst being interviewed by police officers or others in similar positions of authority, from being compelled on pain of punishment to answer questions of any kind.
- (4) A specific immunity, possessed by accused persons undergoing trial, from being compelled to give evidence, and from being compelled to answer questions put to them in the dock.
- (5) A specific immunity, possessed by persons who have been charged with a criminal offence, from having questions material to the offence addressed to them by police officers or persons in a similar position of authority.
- (6) A specific immunity... possessed by accused persons undergoing trial, from having adverse comment made on any failure (a) to answer questions before the trial, or (b) to give evidence at the trial."
There were a number of projects to modify the law, such as the 1972 Criminal Law Revision Committee. The committee recommended that inferences should be drawn from silence, but the committee report was strongly opposed. Certain changes were introduced in 1984, deriving from the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure report of 1981, these introduced a right to have a legal representative during police interrogation and improved access to legal advice.
The right to silence during questioning and trial was changed substantially in the 1990s. The right had already been reduced for those accused of terrorist offences, or questioned by the Serious Fraud Office or the police of Northern Ireland, but in 1994 the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act modified the right to silence for any person under police questioning in England and Wales. The Serious Fraud Office is an arm of the Government of the United Kingdom, accountable to the Attorney-General. ...
Dieu et mon droit (Royal motto) (French for God and my right)2 Northern Irelands location within the UK Main language English Other recognised languages Irish, Ulster Scots Capital and largest city Belfast First Minister Office suspended Secretary of State for Northern Ireland Peter Hain MP Area - Total Ranked...
This page is a candidate for speedy deletion. ...
The new act was based on the 1972 Criminal Law Revision Committee report and the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order (1988). It rejected the reports of the 1991 Royal Commission on Criminal Justice and the Working Group on the Right to Silence. The supporters of the proposed act argued that the existing law was being exploited by 'professional' criminals, while innocent people would rarely exercise their right. Changing the law would improve police investigations and adequate safeguards existed to prevent police abuse. Opponents claimed that innocent people may reasonably remain silent for many reasons, and that changing the law would introduce an element of compulsion and was in clear conflict with the existing core concepts of the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof.
The act allows for negative inferences "as seem proper" to be made if a defendant fails to mention a fact later relied on in defence that could have reasonably be given earlier, seen as evidence of later fabrication. Inferences can also be made from a refusal to account for "objects, substances or marks". These inferences are limited to facts that were later relied on and the circumstances of the defendant at the time of questioning have to be considered.
Following the act, the wording of the caution given at time of arrest was changed correspondingly. See Miranda Warning#Equivalent rights in other countries. The Miranda warning is a police warning that must be given to criminal suspects in police custody in the United States before they can be asked questions relating to the commission of crimes. ...
The act provides that a defendant cannot be convicted solely due to their silence, this position was reinforced by the House of Lords (R. v. Kevin Sean Murray (1993)) and partly by the European Court of Human Rights (John Murray v. United Kingdom (1996), Condron v United Kingdom (2001)), which also restated the need for early access to legal advice. The inferences a jury can draw from silence or failure to mention facts are given to them as the English Model Directions, derived from R. v. Cowan (1996), R v. Birchall (1999), and the cases judged by the ECtHR. [1] This article is about the British House of Lords. ...
European Court of Human Rights building in Strasbourg The European Court of Human Rights, often referred to informally as the Strasbourg Court, was created to systematise the hearing of human rights complaints from Council of Europe member states. ...
John Murray v. ...
There is little valid empirical data on the use of the right to silence during police questioning, the reports that do exist offer very differing figures on the use and the circumstances of the use of silence. It is generally believed that the majority of convictions are derived from, or substantially aided by, self-incrimination.
Comparison between civil and common law Some proponents of inquisitorial justice argue that the right to silence as practiced by courts in an adversarial context is actually much more unfair to the defendant than the system in countries with specially trained inquisitorial judges. [citation needed] In common law procedural systems the defendant has a right to silence, but if he waives that right to silence he is subject to cross-examination by a professional advocate whose goal it is to present the defendant's statements in the worst possible light. This article concerns the common-law legal system, as contrasted with the civil law legal system; for other meanings of the term, within the field of law, see common law (disambiguation). ...
In most civil law jurisdictions where inquisitorial type procedures are established, the defendant may be compelled to make a statement, but this statement is not conducted under oath and the defendant is not subject to cross-examination by the prosecutor. This allows the defendant to explain their actions without having to duel with a lawyer or barrister, they only have to duel with the judge. A lawyer is a person who advises clients in legal matters and represents them in courts of law and in other forms of dispute resolution. ...
A barrister (advocate in Scotland and the Channel Islands, barrister-at-law in Ireland and elsewhere) is a lawyer found in some Common law jurisdictions who principally, but not exclusively, represents litigants as their advocate before the courts of that jurisdiction. ...
See also Perjury is lying or making verifiably false statements under oath or affirmation in a court of law or in any of various sworn statements in writing. ...
In American criminal law, taking the fifth is the act of refusing to testify under oath in a court of law or any other tribunal (such as a Congressional committee) on the grounds that the answers that would be given could be used as evidence against the witness to convict...
External links - Silence: The Ultimate Protector of Individual Rights by Carl Watner
|
Feeds |
Contact