Miranda Rights

O Supremo Tribunal Federal teria aparentemente alterado seu anterior entendimento de que qualquer constatação de um crime em estado de flagrância dentro do domicílio era capaz de validar uma busca domiciliar realizada sem mandado judicial. Desde final de 2015 as buscas domiciliares são inválidas se não era possível divisar a ocorrência de um crime em estado de flagrância a partir do exterior do domicílio. No entanto, se o estado de flagrância for percebi-do apenas de dentro do domicílio e a entrada tenha se dado por consentimento do morador, é válida a prisão em flagrante dela decorrente? O direito fundamental da inviolabilidade domi-ciliar pode ser renunciado? Como deve ocorrer a renúncia à inviolabilidade do domicílio para que se entenda o consentimento como válido? Palavras-chave: BUSCA DOMICILIAR SEM MANDADO. LEGALIDADE. CONSENTI-MENTO. RENÚNCIA A DIREITOS FUNDAMENTAIS. RENÚNCIA À INVIOLABILI-DADE DOMICILIAR. REQUISITOS. ABSTRACT The Brazilian Federal Supreme Court seems to have altered its previous holding that any crime in flagrante state found within a house was able to validate a search and seizure conducted in a house without a court order. Since the end of 2015 warrantless house search and seizure are invalid if the flagrante state of a crime was not perceivable from the outside of the house. However, if the flagrante state is perceived only within the house and the entrance occurred by resident's consent, is it valid the arrest made that arises from the consented en-trance? Can the fundamental right of house inviolability be waived? How should a waiver of the house inviolability occur in order to be valid? Keywords: WARRANTLESS SEARCH AND SEIZURE. LEGALITY. CONSENT. WAIVER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS. WAIVER OF THE HOUSE INVIOLABILITY. REQUIREMENTS. Introdução Este estudo de caso tenta responder se e como o consentimento pode ser utilizado para autorizar a realização de busca e apreensão em domicílio sem mandado judicial e, por conseguinte, validando a prisão em flagrante dela decorrente e se há razão na nova ratio decidendi aparentemente adotado pelo STF.

In 1966 the US Supreme Court ruled that custodial suspects should be advised of their rights, including the right to silence and the right to an attorney, before questioning begins. If they waive their rights and the defense can prove that they did not do so voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently, their confession may be excluded from the evidence. Judges consider many factors in their decisions on motions to suppress, including expert testimony. In this paper, I discuss a case where two experts evaluated language proficiency of the same suspect and arrived at radically different conclusions regarding her ability to understand the warnings. I will show why one assessment was superior to the other, but the true significance of the case is in showing that a dialogic approach to delivery of the rights can reduce linguistic guesswork and help safeguard the integrity of the investigation and due process.

This forensic evaluation sample will cover the competency to confess and waive Miranda rights. The Fifth Amendment guards against self-incrimination. In order to confess, one must waive Miranda rights. However, Miranda rights must be knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived without law enforcement coercion. The individual must be of sound cognitive function, free of mental disorders, absent of abnormal mental states, and delinquent from deviant personality traits. An example of impaired mental processing would be someone that suffers from ADHD. According to Gaskell (2021), ADHD critically diminishes the capacity to register and process new information. Because confessions and self-incriminating statements are leveraged against the suspect during the trial, a guilty verdict is 26% more likely than suspects that do not provide self-incriminating statements (Psycholegal Assessments, Inc., 2021). Therefore, an Independent Medical Exam (IME) will be conducted to evaluate the suspect's competency to waive his or her Miranda rights and competence to stand trial. The use of forensic assessment tools facilitates opinions formed by the Forensic Psychologist. Competency evaluations have the potentiality of profoundly influencing court decisions, thereby affecting defendant consequences. Ultimately, the IME Forensic Psychologist will provide a Forensic Mental Health Assessment to the courts and all involved legal personnel as needed.

Naturaleza de la Confesión. La Confesión y la Teoría de la Prueba. Reinado de la Confesión. Defecto de las pericias. Confesión y Objeto del Proceso. Arresto del potencial confesante. Control de identidad. Parte policial. Excesos policiales. Videovigilancia. Miranda Rules. Técnicas de interrogatorio. Legajo fiscal. Objetividad del fiscal. Tunnel vision. Contradictorio. Derecho a mentir. Derecho al silencio. Principio Nemo Tenetur se Ipsum Accusare. Método Reid. Estado de inocencia. Clasificación de la confesión. Divisibilidad de la confesión. Retractación. Confesión obtenida mediante Truth Serum, Lie-Detection y Test P300 (NeuroLaw). Prueba ilícita. Allanamientos atentatorios del derecho a no autoincriminarse. Conexión de Antijuridicidad. Confesión acusatoria del coimputado. Confesiones falsas. Confesión que se pretende introducir
mediante la declaración del Policía aprehensor. Escuchas telefónicas. Confesión en el Proceso Abreviado. Confesión en el Derecho Tributario.

The purpose of the Miranda rights in the USA is to ensure that suspects know their fundamental rights under the law, yet even native speakers of English do not always understand their rights (Rogers et al., 2010, 2011). To evaluate their understanding, Grisso (1998) developed Miranda Rights Comprehension Instruments (MRCI), normed with native speakers and widely accepted in the legal community. Comprehension of second language (L2) speakers of English, on the other hand, is inferred based on their L2 proficiency but no studies to date offer the scientific basis for causal connections between L2 proficiency and understanding of the Miranda rights. The purpose of the present study was to compare understanding of the Miranda rights among native (n = 82) and advanced L2 speakers of English (n = 183) to determine whether standardized assessments of L2 proficiency can predict comprehension of the Miranda rights.

This here paper is in fact the collection of my reviews of some of his films, those I have seen over the years and those whose critique I have been able to find in my own archives and on various Internet sites like Amazon where I publish them regularly. All of them are in English, but some are also in French since they were published on the now defunct, deceased, departed cinema site Nord-cinema. The French versions are NOT translations: the two languages work differently and translating is always a betrayal. I have also recuperated older reviews published on IMDb or Amazon before injecting the new ones. You will be able to see how I may have changed over time.

The review of Sudden Impact has been refused by both Amazon.com, Amazon.co.uk and IMDb for reasons I ignore. When that happens, since I know it is done by a machine that refuses some words I do NOT bother trying all over again. Once I was covering Black Boy by Richard Wright and I was quoting some sentences in which the black author used the word “nigger” and the word “negro”. The review was refused. So I made the effort of replacing these words (in Richard Wright’s own quotations) by N****, which is just as offensive to any moderately intelligent person, but the review went through and one smart aleck wondered in a comment why I did not use the proper word “negro” and I had no answer except that a machine has a list of words that are supposed to be banned and as for that this machine is not acting niggardly. The list is quite long though I have never found it published anywhere.

That’s the price to pay to be politically correct. I guess these mechanical censors might refuse the historic “American Indian Movement” because “I*****” is not politically correct.

In the first part you will find the five Dirty Harry films in chronological order and then in the second part fourteen films in anti-chronological order starting with Jersey Boys (2014). American Sniper is still to come.

«Miranda rule» as a new element of international human rights law. Ukrainian experience.
«Letters of rights», «Miranda rules» or «Miranda warning» are the titles of the same institution of human rights in the criminal procedure field, which were firstly implemented in the USA. Whether how it called in different countries of the world, the substance doesn’t change – the apprehended person should be informed about its rights and about the right to an attorney and the right to sing dumb. This is one of the basic principles in the presumption of innocence.
The author considers the «Miranda rule» as one of the elements of international human rights law. The main purpose of this article is to analyze the international experience and to improve the theories of criminal procedure and Ukrainian criminal procedural legislation by comparing the institution of human rights of the apprehended person in such countries as Ukraine, the United States of America and the European Union. Also it was clearly defined the role and place of «Miranda rule» in the system of the international law principles.
The article analyzes such concept as «Miranda rule». Practically, this is the principle, which allows the opportunity for apprehended person to know his rights. The author analyzes the history of the introduction of the principle in the United States and other countries, as well as its positive and negative sides. Also the article has highlighted the efforts of the Ukrainian legislator to initiate such kind of principle. The Ukrainian experience of implementation of this principle is analyzed in the article. The suggestions about the improving of the current Ukrainian legislation were also made.
Keywords: Miranda rules, Letters of rights, Miranda warning, international human rights law, criminal procedure, the rights of apprehended person

«Правило Миранды» как новый элемент международного права прав человека. Украинский опыт.
В статье проанализировано такое понятие как «правило Миранды», нормы, предоставляющей возможность лицу задерживаемому сотрудником правоохранительных органов, знать свои права. Автор анализирует историю введения этой нормы в Соединенных Штатах Америки и других стран, а также её положительные и отрицательные стороны. Освещена попытка украинского законодателя ввести подобную норму, высказываются предложения по совершенствованию существующего законодательства.
Ключевые слова: правило Миранды, международное право прав человека, уголовный процесс, права задержанных.

Miranda v. Arizona said that a suspect can waive her right to remain silent but also that she must invoke it. How can both be true about the same right? This article argues that the Miranda “right to remain silent” actually contains two sub-rights: the right not to speak, and the right to cut off police questioning. The Court has never distinguished these as two separate rights - instead usually using the term “right to remain silent” for both - and has thus created confusion over what can be waived and what must be invoked. But when we separate the two rights, we see that a suspect can waive the right not to speak but must invoke the right to cut off questioning - a premise implicitly confirmed by both the majority and the dissent in Berghuis v. Thompkins.