Law Commons^™

When Is Police Interrogation Really Police Interrogation? A Look At The Application Of The Miranda Mandate, Paul Marcus

Catholic University Law Review

Decades after the Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona, questions abound as to what constitutes interrogation when a suspect is in custody. What appeared a concise, uniform rule has, in practice, left the Fifth Amendment waters muddied. This article addresses a potential disconnect between law enforcement and the courts by analyzing examples of issues arising from Miranda’s application in an array of case law. Ultimately, it attempts to clarify an ambiguity by offering a standard for what conduct classifies as an interrogation.

The Evolution Of Juvenile Justice From The Book Of Leviticus To Parens Patriae: The Next Step After In Re Gault, Donald E. Mcinnis, Shannon Cullen, Julia Schon

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

Since the arrival of the Pilgrims, American jurisprudence has known that its law-breaking children must be treated differently than adults. How children are treated by the law raises ethical and constitutional issues. This Article questions the current approach, which applies adult due process protections to children who are unable to fully understand their constitutional rights and the consequences of waiving those rights. The authors propose new Miranda warnings and a Bill of Rights for Children to protect children and their constitutional right to due process under the law.

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

Articles

No abstract provided.

The Exclusion Of Evidence In The United States, Paul Marcus

Paul Marcus

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 …

Compulsion, Lawrence Rosenthal

Lawrence Rosenthal

Prosecutorial Ventriloquism: People V. Tom And The Substantive Use Of Post-Arrest, Pre-Miranda Silence To Infer Consciousness Of Guilt, Joshua Bornstein

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.

You Have The Right To Be Confused! Understanding Miranda After 50 Years, Bryan Taylor

Pace Law Review

Part I of this article briefly explores the background and historical context that ultimately led to the Miranda decision. As the late Dr. Carl Sagan once said, “you have to know the past to understand the present.” Understanding the circumstances and cases leading up to Miranda helps in the overall application of Miranda to cases of today. Part II addresses whether a statement should be allowed into evidence and provides a practical working approach to conduct a Miranda analysis. This innovative approach provides a step-by-step process in determining the admissibility of statements pursuant to Miranda and its progeny. This process …

The Involuntary Confession And The Right To Due Process: Is A Criminal Defendant Better Protected In The Federal Courts Than In Ohio?, Barbara Child

Akron Law Review

OHIO CIVIL LIBERTARIANS have long claimed that a criminal defendant is likely to have his due process rights better protected in the federal courts than in Ohio courts. One measure of that protection is how the courts respond when a defendant alleges that his confession was involuntary and thus not properly admissible as evidence at his trial. The central issue then is whether the Ohio courts have kept as much in step with the United States Supreme Court as have the federal courts in their revisions of what is the proper test of voluntariness of a confession.

The Involuntary Confession And The Right To Due Process: Is A Criminal Defendant Better Protected In The Federal Courts Than In Ohio?, Barbara Child

Akron Law Review

OHIO CIVIL LIBERTARIANS have long claimed that a criminal defendant is likely to have his due process rights better protected in the federal courts than in Ohio courts. One measure of that protection is how the courts respond when a defendant alleges that his confession was involuntary and thus not properly admissible as evidence at his trial. The central issue then is whether the Ohio courts have kept as much in step with the United States Supreme Court as have the federal courts in their revisions of what is the proper test of voluntariness of a confession.

Mental Sanity And Confessions: The Supreme Court's New Version Of The Old "Voluntariness" Standard, Alfredo Garcia

Akron Law Review

Although the voluntariness standard has not been entirely superseded by Miranda v. Arizona because it is applicable to confessions obtained through police coercion, in spite of compliance with Miranda's technical requirements, it has receded into relative obscurity in the wake of Miranda. In Colorado v. Connelly, however, the United States Supreme Court confronted a novel case which neatly juxtaposed questions relevant to the voluntariness test with issues arising from Miranda's dictates. This article will examine the issues raised in Connelly, critique the Court's application of both the voluntariness standard and Miranda to the facts of Connelly, …

Judge Levine: A Survey Of His Most Influential Court Of Appeals Decisions - 1993-2002, Jean D'Alessandro

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

United States V. Patane: The Beginning Of The End Of Miranda, Bryce Chauncey Loveland

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Sanctity Of The Attorney-Client Relationship – Undermined By The Federal Interpretation Of The Right To Counsel - People V. Borukhova, Tara Laterza

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

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 …

Standing Mute At Arrest As Evidence Of Guilt: The 'Right To Silence' Under Attack, Frank R. Herrmann S.J., Brownlow M. Speer

Frank R. Herrmann, S.J.

It is commonly understood that an arrested person has a right to remain silent and that the government may not use his or her silence to prove guilt at trial. Three Circuit Courts of Appeal, however, reject this understanding. They allow the prosecution to use an arrested person's pre-Miranda silence as direct evidence of guilt. This article argues that those Circuits are wrong. The article, first, demonstrates the historical antiquity of the Common Law principle that a detained person has the right to stand mute. Though the right was limited by statutory incursion and in tension, at times, with the …

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 …

The Electronic Recording Of Criminal Interrogations, Roberto Iraola

University of Richmond Law Review

Should law enforcement officers be required to record, by video or audiotape, custodial interrogations of suspects? If so, how much, the entire interrogation or just the confession? Many prosecutors and police departments maintain that a recording requirement will hamper law enforcement and discourage suspects from talking. Proponents of this measure argue that the recording of interrogations protects against false confessions, augments the effective administration of justice, and serves to improve the relationship between the public and the police.

This article generally examines the developing case law on this question. Because of the incriminating nature of confessions, the article, by way …

Pretextual Use Of Search Warrants In Federal White Collar Criminal Investigations Of Legitimate Businesses To Conduct Custodial Interrogations Of Targets, Employees, And Occupants: Can They Really Do That?, Patrick R. James, Matthew R. House

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

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

Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: Criminal Law And Procedure, Cullen D. Seltzer

University of Richmond Law Review

This article discusses recent Virginia cases and legislative developments in the area of criminal law and procedure. The article discusses cases from April of 1995 to July of 1996 and legislative changes effective July 1, 1996. This article does not discuss federal developments. Nor does the article discuss death penalty issues, as that area of the law is sufficiently particularized that, for purposes of manageability, it falls outside the scope of this discussion.

Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: Criminal Law And Procedure, Steven D. Benjamin

University of Richmond Law Review

During the past year, the Court of Appeals of Virginia continued to be the major contributor to the development of substantive and procedural criminal law in the Commonwealth. Many of the court's decisions concerned the characterization of. police-citizen encounters in the context of both Fourth Amendment law and the rights of an accused under Miranda v. Arizona. A number of cases concerned the admissibility of uncharged misconduct, and the numerous double jeopardy opinions involved case-by-case application of Grady v. Corbin, Blockburger v. United States, and related statutes. A growing body of procedural law concerned the propriety of impanelling jurors of …

Modern Confession Law After Duckworth V. Eagan: What's The Use Of Explaining?, Julia C. Weissman

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

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.