Talk:Miranda warning

	This Law related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

What happens if you reply "No" to that question? --151.82.63.159 (talk) 19:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

UK difference

Noticed something interesting. In the US version do you not have "It may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something you later rely on in court"? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 20:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

From WP, that was added in 1994 in case people staying silent caused juries to think the worst. So it's a warning against that. It doesn't look like the US has that as part of the specific warning. ^sshole 20:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

(EC)I don't think that was the reasoning surely? I assumed it was to to let people know they couldn't just turn up in court after not giving a statement and then say "I was at my aunt's house", thereby disallowing the police time to check their stories? I know the wife has had success with this. One guy's lawyer said his client pleaded not guilty, because he was doing x, y and z at the time. The judge (they occasionally have a district judge instead of magistrates) said "Mr (lawyer), do you really expect me to believe that your client suddenly remembered all this after providing contradictory information in his statement?". The lawyer looked a bit baffled, then said "no your honour", and changed his plea to guilty. You don't fuck with the judge! Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 20:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, from the page you quoted below:

“”The section is primarily directed at circumstances where a defendant refuses to reveal his defence until trial, ambushing the prosecution.

Whereas in the US, IIRC, you can actually call surprise witnesses and a lot more is done on the spot in the courtroom. ^sshole 15:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess that's why you don't have that statement in your Miranda warning then, if you're allowed to do it. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Ambushing the prosecution? Being that a court should assume "innocent until proven guilty" it's sort of up to the prosecution to find out such information about the accused without demanding it from the accused. Aphoxema (talk) 12:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Encryption (split from previous)

Now this is an interesting one. ^sshole 20:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that is interesting. Surely that's a human rights breach (right to privacy)? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 20:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Just as we're talking about it, it happens. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Correction

Should 'and will be used against you' be included - if you can provide a cast iron alibi/sufficient reason it cannot be used against you. 86.191.127.63 (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)