NEWS
By Josh Mitchell | July 11, 2007
Joseph Miranda died a year ago next week, his head and neck crushed by a construction vehicle at his job at a Carroll County landscaping company. Five months ago, a state medical examiner urged that the case be further investigated, writing, "There is a strong possibility of a homicide." Today, however, authorities plan to meet with Adrienne Miranda to explain why they believe her 19-year-old son's death was an accident. That conclusion is not likely to satisfy the grieving mother, who says she is pained by what she sees as inconsistencies in witnesses' accounts of the incident.
FEATURES
November 10, 2007
75 Roy Scheider Actor 39 Tracy Morgan Actor-comedian 38 Ellen Pompeo Actress 29 Eve Rapper 24 Miranda Lambert Country singer
NEWS
By Christopher T. Assaf | February 11, 2007
The Saturday schedule was slow, making my intention to spend time at the Father-Daughter Sweetheart Dance sponsored by the Howard County Department of Recreation and Parks at the Kiwanis-Wallas Recreation center very doable. But from the start, things did not go easy. The 5 o'clock start time was incorrect. I walked in with an armload of gear, thinking I was early at 4:45, and found things in full swing. Guessing the room would be dark, I had planned on setting up two remotely fired flash units for light.
NEWS
By Lyle Denniston | March 9, 1999
WASHINGTON -- The Clinton administration came to the defense yesterday of the Supreme Court's controversial 1966 Miranda decision, arguing that Congress had no power to tell courts to accept confessions by criminals who had not been given "Miranda warnings" about their rights.In a case that appears headed for the Supreme Court, the Justice Department asked the full 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., to reconsider and scuttle a ruling last month by three of its members. That decision said that under a 1968 law passed by Congress, voluntary confessions can be admitted in federal cases even if a Miranda warning was not given.
NEWS
By Lyle Denniston | November 2, 1999
WASHINGTON -- The Clinton administration urged the Supreme Court yesterday to reopen the constitutional debate over "Miranda warnings" and to end the debate by reaffirming that requirement as binding on police.In a much-awaited legal brief filed last night at the court, with Attorney General Janet Reno adding her signature to it for emphasis, administration lawyers argued: "The Miranda decision should not be overruled."It added: "Miranda has proved workable in practice and is in many respects beneficial to law enforcement."
TOPIC
By Akhil Reed Amar | December 19, 1999
I HAVE A confession to make: I've been Mirandized more times than I can remember. Well, sort of. I've never actually been arrested or hauled down to a police station. But like virtually everyone else in America, I've been treated to the Miranda warning countless times on television. Its words are burned into my brain as indelibly as the lyrics of "Hey, Jude" or "The Star-Spangled Banner."Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a case, Dickerson vs. United States, that could result in the formal overruling of Miranda.
TOPIC
By Lyle Denniston | February 28, 1999
WASHINGTON -- "Miranda warnings" seem to have become a permanent fixture not only in daily police life but also in television and movie dramas. But that is not the way Antonin Scalia and Paul G. Cassell would have it, and they just might get their way.For years, Scalia, a Supreme Court justice, and Cassell, a University of Utah law professor and a one-time law clerk to Scalia on a lower court, have worked -- not in tandem, but in common purpose -- to...
TOPIC
By Yale Kamisar | February 21, 1999
THE 1966 MIRANDA decision requiring police to inform suspects that they have a right to remain silent was the centerpiece of the Warren court's "revolution in American criminal procedure" and a prime target of those who believed the courts had gone "soft" on crime.But most legal scholars long ago concluded that the time to overrule Miranda had come and gone. Recently, they were stunned by the news that the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., had ruled, against the express wishes of the U.S. Department of Justice, that a provision in a 1968 federal statute, in effect, overruled Miranda, the famed "you have a right to remain silent" Warren court decision now so familiar to everyone.
NEWS
By Lyle Denniston | December 7, 1999
WASHINGTON -- A third of a century after ordering police to warn suspects about their rights, the Supreme Court agreed yesterday to reconsider its Miranda vs. Arizona ruling -- a move that raises the prospect of a momentous shift in the nation's criminal law.The justices' brief announcement, granting review of a Maryland man's appeal, immediately cast doubt on the future of one of the best-known and most controversial decisions the court has ever made on...
NEWS
November 7, 1999
Here is an edited excerpt of an editorial from the Boston Globe, which was published Wednesday.The Supreme Court should back President Clinton's call to protect the Miranda rights of suspects. To some eyes, Miranda is an escape hatch for criminals.But this spin ignores a distinguished history. In 1966 the Supreme Court, in Miranda vs. Arizona, pointed to case law that has repeatedly endorsed the right, embodied in the Fifth Amendment, of individuals not to incriminate themselves.In 1968 Congress passed a law that muddied the issue.