Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Custodial interrogations (2)
- Fifth Amendment (2)
- Miranda v. Arizona (2)
- Right to effective counsel (2)
- Self-incrimination (2)
-
- Sixth Amendment (2)
- United States Supreme Court (2)
- Appointed counsel (1)
- Caseloads (1)
- Confessiona (1)
- Confessions (1)
- Convictions (1)
- Criminal justice (1)
- Defendants (1)
- Defendents (1)
- Discrimination (1)
- Exclusionary rule (1)
- Fairness (1)
- Funding (1)
- Independence (1)
- Innocence (1)
- Law reform (1)
- Lawyers (1)
- Legitimacy (1)
- Massiah v. United States (1)
- Minorities (1)
- Oversight (1)
- Police (1)
- Poverty (1)
- Prisons (1)
- Publication
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Defense Counsel And Public Defence, Eve Brensike Primus
Defense Counsel And Public Defence, Eve Brensike Primus
Book Chapters
Public-defense delivery systems nationwide are grossly inadequate. Public defenders are forced to handle caseloads that no one could effectively manage. They often have no funding for investigation or expert assistance. They aren’t adequately trained, and there is little to no oversight of their work. In many jurisdictions, the public-defense function is not sufficiently independent of the judiciary or the elected branches to allow for zealous representation. The result is an assembly line into prison, mostly for poor people of color, with little check on the reliability or fairness of the process. Innocent people are convicted, precious resources are wasted, and …
The Miranda Case Fifty Years Later, Yale Kamisar
The Miranda Case Fifty Years Later, Yale Kamisar
Articles
A decade after the Supreme Court decided Miranda v. Arizona, Geoffrey Stone took a close look at the eleven decisions the Court had handed down “concerning the scope and application of Miranda.” As Stone observed, “[i]n ten of these cases, the Court interpreted Miranda so as not to exclude the challenged evidence.” In the eleventh case, the Court excluded the evidence on other grounds. Thus, Stone noted, ten years after the Court decided the case, “the Court ha[d] not held a single item of evidence inadmissible on the authority of Miranda.” Not a single item. To use …
Disentangling Miranda And Massiah: How To Revive The Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel As A Tool For Regulating Confession Law, Eve Brensike Primus
Disentangling Miranda And Massiah: How To Revive The Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel As A Tool For Regulating Confession Law, Eve Brensike Primus
Articles
Fifty years after Miranda v. Arizona, many have lamented the ways in which the Burger, Rehnquist, and Roberts Courts have cut back on Miranda's protections. One underappreciated a spect of Miranda's demise is the way it has affected the development of the pretrial Sixth Amendment right to counsel guaranteed by Massiah v. United States. Much of the case law diluting suspects' Fifth Amendment Miranda rights has bled over into the Sixth Amendment right to counsel cases without consideration of whether the animating purposes of the Massiah pretrial right to counsel would support such an importation. This development is unfortunate …