Category Archives: United States

Miranda v Arizona 384 US 436 | 13 June 1966

ON THIS DAY in 1966, the US Supreme Court delivered Miranda v Arizona 384 US 436 (1966).

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/384/436/

The Court held that in order to protect the constitutional privilege against self incrimination under the 5th amendment of the US Constitution, an accused in custody must be informed of his or her right to remain silent; that anything he or she says may be used against him or her in court; and that he or she has the right to consult a lawyer who may present during any interrorgation.

The court held that the prosecution may not use statements of the accused whilst in custody unless the prosecution can show that they informed the accused of their right to silence and the right to a lawyer and that the accused understood this and voluntarily waved such rights in making such a statement.

Miranda warnings are typically phrased 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 an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you?”

The rule in Miranda v Arizona is specific to the United States and does not apply in Australia. There is no 5th amendment privilege against self-incrimination, though the High Court of Australia has held that under the Australian common law, no inference may be drawn from an accused’s silence: Petty & Maiden v R [1991] HCA 34; (1991) 173 CLR 95 (5 September 1991).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1991/34.html

See also: RPS v R [2000] HCA 3; 199 CLR 620; 168 ALR 729; 74 ALJR 449 (3 February 2000).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2000/3.html

However, if an accused choses to answer some questions but not others, inferences may be drawn against the questions the accused did not answer.

In limited circumstances, some questions must be answered, such as in traffic matters. One must give their name and address if they are to receive bail.

The NSW Evidence Act 1995 when first enacted said that no adverse inference could be drawn from the exercise of the right to silence by the accused.  On 20 March 2013, the Act was amended so that the accused is cautioned with: “it may harm your defence if you fail to mention something now that you later rely on at trial”.

NSW law enforcement officers have traditionally given the following warning: “You are not obliged to say or do anything unless you wish to do so, but whatever you say or do may be used in evidence. Do you understand?”

Since the amendment of the Evidence Act, the NSW warning is: “You are not obliged to say or do anything unless you wish to do so. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something you later rely on in court. Anything you do say and do may be given in evidence. Do you understand?”

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

Dred Scott v Sandford (“Dred Scott case”) 60 US 393 (1857) | 5 March 1857

ON THIS DAY IN 1857, the US Supreme Court delivered Dred Scott v Sandford 60 US 393 (1857).

https://supreme.justia.com/us/60/393/case.html

The US Supreme Court ruled that slaves African ancestry were not citizens under the US Constitution.

The decision caused outrage and was a significant event leading up to the election of Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War from 1861 to 1865.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Marbury v Madison 5 US 137 (1803) | 24 February 1803

ON THIS DAY IN 1803, the US Supreme Court delivered Marbury v Madison 5 US 137 (1803).

http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/getcase/us/vol/getcase/US/5/137.html

The Supreme Court of the United States held invalid legislation passed by Congress which purported to enlarge the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by authorising the issue of mandamus. The Court held that Congress had no power to give original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court in cases other than those described in Art III.

The decision is significant in that it sets the principle that the US Supreme Court has the ultimate power to review the validity of acts of Congress enacted in violation of the United States Constitution.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Nader v General Motors Corporation 25 NY2d 560, 255 NE2d 647, 307 NYS2d 647, 1970 NY | 8 January 1970

ON THIS DAY IN 1970, the Court of Appeals of New York delivered Nader v General Motors Corporation 25 NY2d 560, 255 NE2d 647, 307 NYS2d 647, 1970 NY.

http://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/109

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Illinois v Leopold & Loeb | 10 September 1924

ON 10 SEPTEMBER 1924, Nathan Leopold Jr and Richard Loeb were sentenced to 99 years imprisonment after being convicted of attempting to kidnap and murder a 14 year old boy.

http://darrow.law.umn.edu/documents/Leopold_Loeb_Sentencing.pdf

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Sherman Antitrust Act | 2 July 1890

ON 2 JULY 1890, the US Sherman Antitrust Act was passed by US Congress.

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=51

The Act prohibited monopolies and cartels and regulated market activities with the aim of preventing anti-competitive conduct.

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

Civil Rights Act of 1964 (US) | 2 July 1964

ON 2 JULY 1964, the US Civil Rights Act of 1964 was signed into law.

http://www.congresslink.org/print_basics_histmats_civilrights64text.htm

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

National Federation of Independent Business v Sebelius 567 US (2012) | 28 June 2012

ON 28 JUNE 2012, the US Supreme Court delivered National Federation of Independent Business v Sebelius 567 US (2012).

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

The court upheld the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Engel v Vitale 370 US 421| 25 June 1962

ON 25 JUNE 1962, the US Supreme Court delivered Engel v Vitale, 370 US 421 (1962).

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/370/421/case

The US Supreme Court held that state-sponsored school prayers in US public schools violated the constitution.

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

Miranda v Arizona 384 US 436

On 13 June 1966, the US Supreme Court delivered Miranda v Arizona 384 US 436 (1966).

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/384/436/

The Court held that in order to protect the constitutional privilege against self incrimination under the 5th amendment of the US Constitution, an accused in custody must be informed of his or her right to remain silent; that anything he or she says may be used against him or her in court; and that he or she has the right to consult a lawyer who may present during any interrorgation.

The court held that the prosecution may not use statements of the accused whilst in custody unless the prosecution can show that they informed the accused of their right to silence and the right to a lawyer and that the accused understood this and voluntarily waved such rights in making such a statement.

Miranda warnings are typically phrased 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 an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you?”

The rule in Miranda v Arizona is specific to the United States and does not apply in Australia. There is no 5th amendment privilege against self-incrimination, though the High Court of Australia has held that under the Australian common law, no inference may be drawn from an accused’s silence: Petty & Maiden v R [1991] HCA 34; (1991) 173 CLR 95 (5 September 1991).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1991/34.html

See also: RPS v R [2000] HCA 3; 199 CLR 620; 168 ALR 729; 74 ALJR 449 (3 February 2000).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2000/3.html

However, if an accused choses to answer some questions but not others, inferences may be drawn against the questions the accused did not answer.

In limited circumstances, some questions must be answered, such as in traffic matters. One must give their name and address if they are to receive bail.

The NSW Evidence Act 1995 when first enacted said that no adverse inference could be drawn from the exercise of the right to silence by the accused.  On 20 March 2013, the Act was amended so that the accused is cautioned with: “it may harm your defence if you fail to mention something now that you later rely on at trial”.

NSW law enforcement officers have traditionally given the following warning: “You are not obliged to say or do anything unless you wish to do so, but whatever you say or do may be used in evidence. Do you understand?”

Since the amendment of the Evidence Act, the NSW warning is: “You are not obliged to say or do anything unless you wish to do so. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something you later rely on in court. Anything you do say and do may be given in evidence. Do you understand?”

Lawyers 1300 00 2088