My 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.