미국에서의 미란다 법칙과 그 실효성 확보방안

A criminal suspect isolated from the outside is said to be in practice obliged to tolerate interrogation. Therefore, the suspect can not withdraw from the interrogation room by his own intention, and the suspects must continue to respond to the enthusiastic persuasion by the investigators. The suspects who appoint counsel at this stage are less than 60%. Even if you are appointed counsel, you can not contact with us at any time during the interrogation, and you have to wait until the interview or the most recent break. It is not allowed to see counsel on the occasion of interrogation and to receive advice. The Constitution and Criminal Procedure Act, in order to guarantee and realize the defendant’s right to defend the defendant, imposed an obligation of the right to veto the statement, the right to receive counsel’s assistance, the right to appoint an attorney, the right to visit and traffic. These defense rights realize the principle of due procedure that they must discover the facts within the framework of human rights guarantees, after realizing the human rights of the suspects and defendants. This is to guarantee the status of the suspect, as not the object of the investigation, but the status of the subject in the preparatory procedure. however, in terms of the investigative agency, the right of defense, which is guaranteed to the suspect, is the limit of investigation. In the United States, the so-called “Miranda Rule” has been established, denying the evidence of the infringement of the defendant's right to defense. when investigating a suspect under arrest, the suspect must be reported to Miranda, and the ability of the evidence obtained in violation thereof has been uniformly denied. Although Miranda rule, after the judgment of Miranda has been sentenced, has been criticized for causing serious obstacles to the practice of investigation, the effect on the practice of investigation is not so large. In particular, the percentage of attorney’s participation in the defendant’s investigation procedure is very low in Korea, which can be regarded as a negative attitude to the attorney’s participation in the investigation. In conclusion, Miranda’s law requires efforts to ensure the effectiveness of Miranda’s rights. it must to be, to ensure its effectiveness, excluded the use of evidence of confessions obtained without consulting counsel or attorney’s participation, or to be automatically appointed an attorney.