伍、判決先例拘束原則（Stare Decisis）：
一、If a similar dispute has been resolved in the past, the court is bound to follow the
reasoning used in the prior decision 如果同樣的爭議在過去已經被解決過，
形成先例，屬同管轄的法院有義務遵守過去判決所使用的論理。
二、Binding Effect 拘束效果；Persuasive Effect 說服力效果
三、法官造法（Judge-made law）：
If, however, the court finds that the current dispute is fundamentally distinct
from all previous cases (called a "matter of first impression"), judges have the
authority and duty to make law by creating precedent.但如果法院發現現在的
爭議根本上不同於過去的案例（第一次印象之議題），法官有權且有義務創
造判例而造法
陸、美國憲法修正案第 5 條：
一、內容：
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,
unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising
in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war
or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be
twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case
to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,
without just compensation
非經大陪審團提起公訴，人民不受死罪或其他不名譽罪之審判，但戰時或國
難時期服現役之陸海軍或國民兵所發生之案件，不在此限。同一罪案，不得
令其受兩次生命或身體上之危險。不得強迫刑事罪犯自證其罪，亦不得未經
正當法律手續剝奪其生命、自由或財產。非有公正賠償，不得將私產收為公
用。
二、法理：Grand Juries 大陪審團
Double Jeopardy 雙重危險
Self-Incrimination 自證其罪
Due Process Clause 正當程序條款
Just Compensation Clause 公平補償條款
三、Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)：米蘭達之訴訟
（一）判決：
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear appeals from all four defendants, joining the
appeals into a single review.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona addressed four different cases
involving custodial interrogations. In each, the defendant was questioned by police
officers, detectives, or a prosecuting attorney in a room in which he was cut off from
the outside world. In none of these cases was the defendant given a full and effective
warning of his rights at the outset of the interrogation process. In all the cases, the
questioning elicited oral admissions, and in three of them, signed statements as well
which were admitted at their trials.
美國最高法院同意審理所有四名被告的上訴，加入到一個單一的審查上訴。
在米蘭達之訴訟亞利桑那州最高法院的判決涉及四個不同的案件拘留盤問。被告
提出質疑，被告在一個房間中被警察、偵探或檢察官切斷一切外來資訊。被告的
權利在一開始的審問過程中並無給於充分與有效的預警，在這個情況下，被告與
其他三位只能在以警方為主單獨監禁訊問的氣氛下口述並簽屬自我入罪的陳
述，沒有受到憲法權利的充分警告。
The Miranda case involved four criminal defendants. Each of the defendants was
appealing a conviction based in part on the failure of law enforcement officers to
advise him, prior to custodial interrogation, of his right to an attorney or his right to
remain silent.
米蘭達案涉及 4 位刑事被告。每個被告根據失職的司法人員在告知他與他的律師
有保持沉默的權利前監禁審訊造成他被定罪因而提出上訴。
The circumstances involving the other three defendants were similar, all three
confessing after a period of custodial interrogation without the assistance of legal
counsel.
此涉及與其他三名被告人的情況相似，所有這三個被告都是在沒有法律顧問的協
助下，經過一段時間的監禁審訊而認罪的。
（二）Facts of Miranda v. Arizon 米蘭達案的事實
On March 2, 1963, Patricia McGee (not her real name) was kidnapped and raped
while walking home after work in Phoenix, Arizona.
Ernesto Miranda, the first defendant listed in the case, was arrested on March 18,
1963, at his home in Arizona and taken to a Phoenix police station where he was
identified as a rapist by the complaining witness. Police then brought Miranda to an
interrogation room where he was questioned by two police officers for two hours,
which resulted in a signed, written confession.
The officers did not tell Miranda that he had a right to an attorney, and Miranda
confessed to the crime in two hours. Miranda wrote a confession on a piece of paper
and signed the paper. At the top of the paper was a typed statement saying that
Miranda had made the confession voluntarily and with full knowledge of his legal
rights.
At trial, the oral and written confessions were presented to the jury. Miranda was
found guilty of kidnapping and rape in Arizona state court and was sentenced to
20-30 years imprisonment on each count. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona
held that Miranda’s constitutional rights were not violated in obtaining the
confession.
1963 年 3 月 2 日，帕特里夏·麥吉（化名）在美國亞利桑那州鳳凰城，下班後步
行回家被人綁架，強姦。
埃內斯托·米蘭達，第一被告在案件中被列出，1963 年 3 月 18 日在美國亞利桑那
州他的家中被逮捕並且被帶到鳳凰城派出所，在那裡他被認定指認為強姦犯而抱
怨證人。隨後米蘭達被警察帶到一間審訊室，在那裡他被兩名警察的質問了兩個
小時，導致米蘭達簽署書面供詞。
警察沒有告訴米蘭達，他有一個律師的權利，和米蘭達在兩小時內對犯罪事實要
求米蘭達供認。米蘭達在一張紙上寫了告白和簽署的文件。在紙張頂部是一個類
型的聲明說，米蘭達曾供述自願和充分了解自己的合法權利。
在審訊中，口頭和書面供詞被提交給陪審團。米蘭達綁架和強姦罪名在亞利桑那
州法院被裁定有罪，每項罪名被判處 20-30 年監禁。在上訴中，美國亞利桑那州
最高法院認為，米蘭達的憲法權利不受侵犯取得供認。
The constitutional issue we decide in each of these cases is the admissibility of
statements obtained from a defendant questioned while in custody or otherwise
deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way
憲法上的問題是我們在這些案件下決定以任何重大方式用羈押或以其他方式剝
奪他的行動自由的的手段從被告取得的聲明質問供詞可否被受理?
（三）US Supreme Court holding: 美國最高法院召開
The Court held that “there can be no doubt that the Fifth Amendment privilege is
available outside of criminal court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all
settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way from being
compelled to incriminate themselves.” As such, “the prosecution may not use
statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial
interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural
safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. By custodial
interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a
person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in
any significant way.
法院認為，“毫無疑問，第五修正案特權之外是可利用刑事法庭程序並提供，以
保護他們的行動自由被強迫供罪自己的方式在任何重大剝奪在所有設置。”因
此，“控方可能不使用報表，是否開脫罪責或歸罪，源於被告監禁審訊，除非它
說明了如何使用程序上的保障措施有效地確保不自證其罪的特權。監禁審訊，我
們的意思是質疑執法人員開始後，一個人已經被用任何重大方式拘留或剝奪他的
行動自由。
a defendant “must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to
remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he
has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney
one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires
被告“必須事先警告任何問話，他有權保持沉默，那什麼，他說，法院的法律可
以用來對付他，他有律師的權利在場的，並說如果他請不起律師的人如果他如此
希望會被委任為他之前的任何質問。
（四）聯邦最高法院於 1966 年審理並最終以 5 比 4 作出判決的一個里程碑式的
案件。在判決中，聯邦最高法院規定在實施逮捕和審訊嫌犯時，警方必須及時提
醒被告以下事項：1、有權保持沉默，拒絕回答警方提出的問題；2、如果回答了
警方的問題，這些供詞將會用來起訴和審判他們；3、可以請律師，並且可以要
求審問時有律師在場給予幫 助；4、如果他請不起律師，法庭將免費為之指派一
位。這樣的四條內容就是著名的米蘭達警語。同時判決中還規定，警方在告知嫌
疑其擁有以上權利後，還必須確定他們的確已經明白了其中的意義，如果他們仍
然自願放棄這些權利配合警方，那麼其之後的供詞以及根據這些供詞所獲得了其
它任何證據才能在法庭審判中呈庭，否則就都是無效的。
（五）At the heart of this case is the standard governing a suspect’s waiver of the
right to silence under the Fifth Amendment 標準的有關犯罪嫌疑人的豁免根據第
五修正案的沉默權
（六）the state court's decision to reject Mr. Thompkins' Miranda claim was correct
州法院決定拒絕湯普金斯先生的“米蘭達要求是對的
Mr. Thompkins failed to invoke his Miranda rights to remain silent and to
counsel because he failed to do so "unambiguously.湯普金斯先生未能援
引他的米蘭達有權保持沉默和律師，因為他沒有這樣做“明確”
Mr. Thompkins waived his Miranda right to remain silent when he "knowingly
and voluntarily" made a statement to the police 湯普金斯先生放棄他的米蘭
達有權保持沉默，當他“在知情和自願”做出了向警方供述。
（七）The invocation of that right must be unambiguous 引用該權利必須明確
→如果犯罪嫌疑人在明確知道自己有權保持沉默和與律師商議後，卻沒
有明確要求 行使這一權力，那麼其之後的供詞將可以被法庭視為有
效證據。
（八）刑事嫌疑人在行使這種憲法權利時，必須清楚地說出來，必須清楚地告訴
審訊人員 有關他的意圖和決定，而不可一言不發，直接保持沉默。
四、禁止雙重危險原則（Double Jeopardy）：美國憲法增修條文第五條
nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of
life or limb
 任何人不得因同一犯罪行為而遭受兩次生命或身體的危害
 避免被告就同一犯罪遭受到兩次以上的審判
 儘管美國憲法第五修正案最初僅適用於聯邦政府而已，然而美國聯邦最
高法院認為， 此項禁止雙重危險的條款透過美國憲法第十四修正案中
所闡釋的正當法律程序原則之適用後，對於美國的各州仍應有所適用。
when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final
judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated between the same parties in any
future lawsuit."
當一個事實問題已經有一個有效且最終的判決，該問題即不應該就相同的當事人
在未來的任何訴訟中加以審理