Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Stewart V. State, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 20 (May 4, 2017), Margarita Elias
Stewart V. State, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 20 (May 4, 2017), Margarita Elias
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Before his interrogation, Tommy Laquade Stewart (“Stewart”) was given LVMPD’s Miranda warning pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona.[1] Stewart then agreed to speak with detectives without an attorney. He was subsequently charged and convicted of kidnapping and robbery. On appeal, Stewart argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions and that the Miranda warning was legally insufficient. The Court disagreed and affirmed the district court’s judgment of conviction.
[1] 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
Manipulation Of Suspects And Unrecorded Questioning, Christopher Slobogin
Manipulation Of Suspects And Unrecorded Questioning, Christopher Slobogin
Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications
Fifty years after Miranda, courts still do not have clear guidance on the types oftechniques police may use during interrogation. While first-generation tactics (a.k.a. the third degree) are banned, second-generation tactics such as those found in the famous Reid Manual continue to be used by interrogators. The Supreme Court has sent only vague signals as to which of these second- generation techniques, if any, are impermissible, and has made no mention of newly developed third-generation tactics that are much less reliant on manipulation. This Article divides second-generation techniques into four categories: impersonation, rationalization, fabrication, and negotiation. After concluding, based on …
Still Handcuffing The Cops? A Review Of Fifty Years Of Empirical Evidence Of Miranda's Harmful Effects On Law Enforcement, Paul Cassell, Richard Fowles
Still Handcuffing The Cops? A Review Of Fifty Years Of Empirical Evidence Of Miranda's Harmful Effects On Law Enforcement, Paul Cassell, Richard Fowles
Utah Law Faculty Scholarship
The fiftieth anniversary of Miranda v. Arizona offers a chance to assess how the decision has played out in the real world and, in particular, to determine whether it has harmed law enforcement. In this Article, we take advantage of the time since the Miranda decision—now a little more than fifty years—to see whether it has produced the predicted harmful consequences. In particular, we survey the available empirical evidence about Miranda’s effects on law enforcement. We collect confession rate data, both from the time of Miranda and since, to assess whether Miranda caused confession rates to fall. We also review …