This became prominent with the Miranda vs. Arizona, 1966 Supreme Court decision that requires a law enforcement officer to advise an arrested suspect of certain rights and warnings. These are the right to remain silent, the right to counsel and that anything they say may be used against the suspect during criminal proceedings. One caveat that often misleads a suspect is that they believe that if they have not been advised of their rights that what they say may not be used against them. If a suspect has been arrested and gives oral evidence without being questioned has often been considered a spontaneous utterance. Although it may be challenged during the trial the utterance may be
This became prominent with the Miranda vs. Arizona, 1966 Supreme Court decision that requires a law enforcement officer to advise an arrested suspect of certain rights and warnings. These are the right to remain silent, the right to counsel and that anything they say may be used against the suspect during criminal proceedings. One caveat that often misleads a suspect is that they believe that if they have not been advised of their rights that what they say may not be used against them. If a suspect has been arrested and gives oral evidence without being questioned has often been considered a spontaneous utterance. Although it may be challenged during the trial the utterance may be