Criminal Procedure Commons^™

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 …

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 …

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 …

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 …

State V. Lovejoy: Should Pre-Arrest, Pre-Miranda Silence Be Admissible During The State's Case-In-Chief As Substantive Evidence Of Guilt?, Mark A. Rucci

Maine Law Review

Article 1, section 6 of Maine Constitution reads in part that “[t]he accused shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself or herself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, property, or privileges . . . .” Further, the Law Court has held that “the State constitutional protection against self-incrimination is the equivalent of the Fifth Amendment." However, as with most provisions of the Constitution, the protection against self-incrimination is open to interpretation. While the Supreme Court has answered some questions surrounding the Fifth Amendment’s protections, it has left many decisions regarding its scope largely within the purview of the …

The Death Penalty And The Fifth Amendment, Joseph Blocher

Northwestern University Law Review

Can the Supreme Court find unconstitutional something that the text of the Constitution “contemplates”? If the Bill of Rights mentions a punishment, does that make it a “permissible legislative choice” immune to independent constitutional challenges?

Recent developments have given new hope to those seeking constitutional abolition of the death penalty. But some supporters of the death penalty continue to argue, as they have since Furman v. Georgia, that the death penalty must be constitutional because the Fifth Amendment explicitly contemplates it. The appeal of this argument is obvious, but its strength is largely superficial, and is also mostly irrelevant to …

Recent Development: Williams V. State: A Confession Is Voluntary Unless The Defendant Unambiguously Invokes His Constitutional Right To Remain Silent Or The Confession Is Obtained Through Coercion Or Inducement, Pascale Cadelien

University of Baltimore Law Forum

The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that “I don’t want to say nothing. I don’t know,” is an ambiguous invocation of the right to remain silent. Williams v. State, 445 Md. 452, 455, 128 A.3d 30, 32 (2015). The court reasoned that the defendant’s addition of “I don’t know” to his initial assertion “I don’t want to say nothing” created uncertainty about whether he intended to invoke his right to remain silent. Id. at 477, A.3d at 44. This allowed a reasonable officer to interpret his statement as an “ambiguous request to remain silent.” Id. Furthermore, the officers’ implication …

Policing In The Era Of Permissiveness: Mitigating Misconduct Through Third-Party Standing, Julian A. Cook Iii

Brooklyn Law Review

On April 4, 2015, Walter L. Scott was driving his vehicle when he was stopped by Officer Michael T. Slager of the North Charleston, South Carolina, police department for a broken taillight. A dash cam video from the officer’s vehicle showed the two men engaged in what appeared to be a rather routine verbal exchange. Sometime after Slager returned to his vehicle, Scott exited his car and ran away from Slager, prompting the officer to pursue him on foot. After he caught up with Scott in a grassy field near a muffler establishment, a scuffle between the men ensued, purportedly …

Miranda 2.0, Tonja Jacobi

Faculty Articles

Fifty years after Miranda v. Arizona, significant numbers of innocent suspects are falsely confessing to crimes while subject to police custodial interrogation. Critics on the left and right have proposed reforms to Miranda, but few such proposals are appropriately targeted to the problem of false confessions. Using rigorous psychological evidence of the causes of false confessions, this Article analyzes the range of proposals and develops a realistic set of reforms — Miranda 2.0 — which is directed specifically at this foundational challenge to the justice system. Miranda 2.0 is long overdue; it should require: warning suspects how long they …

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.

"I Plead The Fifth": New York's Integrated Domestic Violence Courts And The Defendant's Fifth Amendment Dilemma, Rhona Mae Amorado

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Confessions In An International Age: Re-Examining Admissibility Through The Lens Of Foreign Interrogations, Julie Tanaka Siegel

Michigan Law Review

In Colorado v. Connelly the Supreme Court held that police misconduct is necessary for an inadmissible confession. Since the Connelly decision, courts and scholars have framed the admissibility of a confession in terms of whether it successfully deters future police misconduct. As a result, the admissibility of a confession turns largely on whether U.S. police acted poorly, and only after overcoming this threshold have courts considered factors pointing to the reliability and voluntariness of the confession. In the international context, this translates into the routine and almost mechanic admission of confessions— even when there is clear indication that the confession …

A Defendant's Fifth Amendment Right And Double Jeopardy In Contempt Cases, Saba Khan

Touro 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 …

A Look Back At The "Gatehouses And Mansions" Of American Criminal Procedure, Yale Kamisar

Articles

I am indebted to Professor William Pizzi for remembering—and praising—the “Gatehouses and Mansions” essay I wrote fifty years ago. A great many articles and books have been written about Miranda. So it is nice to be remembered for an article published a year before that famous case was ever decided.

The Future Of Confession Law: Toward Rules For The Voluntariness Test, Eve Brensike Primus

Michigan Law Review

Confession law is in a state of collapse. Fifty years ago, three different doctrines imposed constitutional limits on the admissibility of confessions in criminal cases: Miranda doctrine under the Fifth Amendment, Massiah doctrine under the Sixth Amendment, and voluntariness doctrine under the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. But in recent years, the Supreme Court has gutted Miranda and Massiah, effectively leaving suspects with only voluntariness doctrine to protect them during police interrogations. The voluntariness test is a notoriously vague case-by-case standard. In this Article, I argue that if voluntariness is going to be the framework for …

A Comprehensive Analysis Of The History Of Interrogation Law, With Some Shots Directed At Miranda V. Arizona, Tracey Maclin

Faculty Scholarship

Police interrogation is designed to convict suspects under arrest or those suspected of crime. It does not matter that the suspect may not be guilty; interrogation is instigated to obtain an incriminating statement that will help convict the suspect. While many are quick to defend what are considered the “respectable freedoms” embodied in the Constitution — freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion — few champion the Fifth Amendment’s bar against compelled self-incrimination, popularly known as the “right to remain silent,” as a basis for a suspect’s right to resist police questioning. Although it has been …

Mirandizing Terrorism Suspects? The Public Safety Exception, The Rescue Doctrine, And Implicit Analogies To Self-Defense, Defense Of Others, And Battered Woman Syndrome, Bruce Ching

Catholic University Law Review

In its 1984 decision New York v. Quarles, the Supreme Court announced the public safety exception, under which statements made by un-Mirandized suspects can be admissible when made in response to questions reasonably asked to protect the safety of the arresting officers or the general public. During the investigation of terrorism cases, law enforcement agencies have begun to extend the time of un-Mirandized questioning of suspects, with the hope that courts will find that the public safety exception makes the suspects’ statements admissible in the ensuing prosecutions.

This Article argues that in announcing the public safety exception, …

The Line Holds, But Death May Matter: The Supreme Court's Criminal Procedure Decisions Of The 2001 Term, William Hellerstein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Survey Of The History Of The Death Penalty In The United States, Sheherezade C. Malik, D. Paul Holdsworth

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Mirandizing Terrorism Suspects? The Public Safety Exception, The Rescue Doctrine, And Implicit Analogies To Self-Defense, Defense Of Others, And Battered Woman Syndrome, Bruce Ching

Journal Articles

This article argues that in creating the public safety exception to the Miranda requirements, the Supreme Court implicitly analogized to the criminal law doctrines of self-defense and defense of others. Thus, examining the justifications of self-defense and defense of others can be useful in determining the contours of the public safety exception and the related "rescue doctrine" exception. In particular, the battered woman syndrome -- which is recognized in a majority of the states and has been successfully invoked by defendants in some self-defense cases -- could provide a conceptual analogue for arguments about whether law enforcement officers were faced …

Against Professing: Practicing Critical Criminal Procedure, Mae Quinn

Journal Articles

No abstract provided.

It's Alive!: How Early Common Law Changes In The Right Against Self-Incrimination Inform The Right's Continuing Relevance, Sheldon Evans

Faculty Publications

The intersection of the Self-Incrimination Clause and Miranda warnings has stemmed disagreement among courts on the scope and application of the right against self-incrimination. To aid in their dilemma, court's often embark on a historical inquiry to give insight into proper interpretations of the Clause. In light of a recent circuit split on one of the Clause's key terms—namely what constitutes a “criminal case”— this Article embarks on a historical inquiry that adds clarity to the topic. By highlighting the several ways the right against self-incrimination changed in its 200 year common law history before the Constitutional Convention, this Article …

District Court, Nassau County, People V. Yaghoubi, David Schoenhaar

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Putting The Cat Back In The Bag: Involuntary Confessions And Self-Incrimination, Joseph A. Iemma

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Self-Incrimination: Are Underlying Questions About A Pending Conviction On Appeal A Violation Of A Defendant's Fifth Amendment Privilege Against Self-Incrimination?, Macdonald R. Drane Iv

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Double Jeopardy: A Resentencing Game, Deirdre Cicciaro

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Probing Into Salinas's Silence: Back To The "Accused Speaks" Model?, Rinat Kitai-Sangero, Yuval Merin

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court, Bronx County, People V. Buari, Matthew Moisan

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.