Posted by Sasha Volokh:
UPDATING THE OED II: MIRANDIZE --
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_07_09-2006_07_15.shtml#1152476678
My [1]last post recounted the story of how I found usages of "absent,"
in its "quasi-prepositional" (so says the OED -- but why quasi?) sense
of "without," dating back to 1888, not the 1944 that the OED now
reports. Well, if the OED has incomplete research on American legal
usages, and I have good legal research skills, perhaps there are other
opportunities for discovery? Here is the substance of my e-mail on the
verb "Mirandize," which the OED has going back to 1984:
1971 California Reporter XCVI. 128 The Court did not Mirandize the
defendant. 1983 State v. Ralston, Ohio appellate case reported in
the Westlaw legal database at 1983 WL 4365, page 2, footnote 1, and
in the LEXIS legal database at 1983 Ohio App. LEXIS 11918, page 7,
footnote 1. While "Mirandize" is not a verb, yet, it succinctly
describes the procedural warning required by Miranda v. Arizona
(1966). 1983 Pacific Reporter DCLXXII. 511 At one of the
interviews, a police officer failed to "Mirandize" the defendant
"because he felt that urgency of time required immediate discovery
of [the missing victim]."
Also, State v. Ralston has the past participle "Mirandized"
("According to the State, the appellant was "Mirandized" on ten
separate occasions."). The OED lists "Mirandized" as an adjective ("a
properly Mirandized defendant") with evidence back to 1988, so I
suggested State v. Ralston as as a 1983 source for this too, even
though they may reject it depending how serious they want to be about
the past participle/adjective distinction.
References
1. http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_07_09-2006_07_15.shtml#1152422787
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
