Law Commons^™

The Court And The Suspect: Human Frailty, The Calculating Criminal, And The Penitent In The Interrogation Room, Scott E. Sundby

Articles

No abstract provided.

Point/Counterpoint On The Miranda Decision: Should It Be Replaced Or Retained?, Paul Cassell, Amos N. Guiora

Utah Law Faculty Scholarship

In this point/counterpoint exchange, Professors Paul Cassell and Amos Guiora debate the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona. Cassell challenges the decision, arguing that it has had harmful effects on American law enforcement efforts. Cassell cites evidence that the decision led to reduction in crime clearance rates and urges that the restrictions in the decision be replaced by a requirement that the police videotape interrogations. Cassell urges prosecutors to consider arguing that modern tools like videotaping creates a legal regime that allows the technical Miranda rules to be regarded as superseded relics of an outmoded and harmful prophylactic …

False Massiah: The Sixth Amendment Revolution That Wasn't, Wayne A. Logan

Scholarly Publications

No abstract provided.

Fifty Years Later And Miranda Still Leaves Us With Questions, Nicole Langston, Bernice B. Donald

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

This affords the suspect safeguards to make an informed choice between speech and silence and prevents involuntary statements. Although Miranda warnings are seemingly standard, the Miranda decision did not come without criticism.' Now, on the fiftieth anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision, the topic still garners intense debate.' Even after all of these years, there are still critics who do not support Miranda warnings, and now they rely on long-term studies about the effectiveness of Miranda warnings to support their positions. Yet, even with these new studies, there still remains some ambiguity about the effectiveness of Miranda rights concerning whether …

The Prophylactic Fifth Amendment, Tracey Maclin

Faculty Scholarship

Before Miranda was decided, the Court had not squarely confronted the issue of when a violation of the Fifth Amendment occurs. Over fifty years ago, the Court acknowledged that the right against self-incrimination has two interrelated facets: The Government may not use compulsion to elicit self-incriminating statements; and the Government may not permit the use in a criminal trial of self-incriminating statements elicited by compulsion. Back then, the “conceptual difficulty of pinpointing” when a constitutional violation occurs — when the Government employs compulsion, or when the compelled statement is actually admitted at trial — was unimportant. Chavez v. Martinez forced …

The Miranda App: Metaphor And Machine, Andrew Ferguson, Richard Leo

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

For fifty years, the core problem that gave rise to Miranda – namely, the coercive pressure of custodial interrogation – has remained largely unchanged. This article proposes bringing Miranda into the twenty-first century by developing a “Miranda App” to replace the existing, human Miranda warnings and waiver process with a digital, scripted computer program of videos, text, and comprehension assessments. The Miranda App would provide constitutionally adequate warnings, clarifying answers, contextual information, and age-appropriate instruction to suspects before interrogation. Designed by legal scholars, validated by social science experts, and tested by police, the Miranda App would address several decades of …

Separate But Equal: Miranda's Rights To Silence And Counsel, Steven P. Grossman

All Faculty Scholarship

Three decades ago, the Supreme Court created a dubious distinction between the rights accorded to suspects in custody who invoke their right to silence and who invoke their right to counsel. This distinction significantly disadvantages those who do not have the good sense or good fortune to specify they want an attorney when they invoke their right to remain silent. This article argues that this distinction was flawed at its genesis and that it has led to judicial decisions that are inconsistent, make little sense, and permit police behavior that substantially diminishes the right to silence as described in Miranda …

Beyond Torture: The Nemo Tenetur Principle In Borderline Cases, Luis E. Chiesa

Journal Articles

In this article I examine three borderline cases in which it is not clear whether a confession had been obtained in violation of the nemo tenetur principle (i.e. the rights against self-incrimination and forced inculpation). The case of the false confession presents a situation in which a person made a voluntary confession but the overwhelming evidence pointed to the falsity of the statements. In contrast, the confession obtained in the case of the truth serum is of high probative value. However, it could be argued that the suspect did not voluntarily decide to incriminate himself, given that he confessed when …

Miranda's Demise, Steven D. Clymer

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Miranda v. Arizona has been a prominent fixture of the American criminal justice system, as well as police television shows and movies, for more than a third of a century. And when, amid considerable fanfare, the Supreme Court in June 2000 announced its decision in Dickerson v. United States, it appeared that Miranda would retain that status for the foreseeable future. In Dickerson, a surprisingly large 7–2 majority settled a long-standing debate about the constitutional legitimacy of Miranda, holding that the Miranda rules are firmly grounded in the Fifth Amendment’s self-incrimination clause.

But now, a mere three …

Are Police Free To Disregard Miranda?, Steven D. Clymer

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

The Exclusion Of Evidence In The United States, Paul Marcus

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination In A Rescue Situation, William T. Pizzi

Publications

No abstract provided.

Right Against Self-Incrimination -- "Public Safety" Exception, David C. Williams

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.