Law Commons^™

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 …

Miranda’S Near Death Experience: Reflections On The Occasion Of Miranda’S Fiftieth Anniversary, Eugene R. Milhizer

Catholic University Law Review

Miranda v. Arizona is widely regarded as one of the most controversial Supreme Court decisions in U.S. history. Shortly after the case was decided, Gallop Polls indicated that 63% of the public felt the Supreme Court was too soft on criminals. But despite its controversy, Miranda has become so widely accepted in popular culture that most people cannot imagine a criminal justice system without it. This wide spread acceptance, however, is more of a recent phenomenon in the landmark case’s history.

This article discusses Miranda’s tumultuous past; its harsh criticism from the legal community, academics, and the public at …

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 …

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 …

Resurrecting Miranda's Right To Counsel, David Rossman

Faculty Scholarship

The regime created by Miranda v. Arizona is at this point in its history bankrupt both intellectually and in terms of practical effect. Justices who have joined the Court after Miranda have cut back its scope by stingy interpretations of the doctrine’s reach and effect. In practice, few suspects actually benefit from the way Miranda is now implemented in police stations and courtrooms. Given the failure of Miranda’s promise, can we envision an alternative? Here is one that may be politically palatable and doctrinally feasible, largely adopted from English practice:

1. Police would give the same Miranda warnings that they …

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 …

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 …

The Prophylactic Fifth Amendment, Tracey Maclin

UF Law Faculty Publications

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 …

Compulsion, Lawrence Rosenthal

Lawrence Rosenthal