Blog:Case Reviews/U.S. Supreme Court - Miranda - Revision history

Abassos@mpdlaw.com at 05:18, January 22, 2013

2013-01-22T05:18:29Z

Maintenance script: Importing text file

2012-12-21T02:03:02Z

Importing text file

Maintenance script: Importing text file

2012-12-21T00:23:48Z

Importing text file

New page

As avid readers of this blog are aware (from [[Blog:Main/scotus_%E2%80%93_Miranda_Case_Du_Jour|my March post here]]), the high Court has been considering the question of whether 3 hours of silence followed by a confession is a waiver of one's Miranda rights. The following exchange from oral argument nicely sums up both the internal dynamic and the upshot of [http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1470.pdf today's ruling]:

<blockquote>

''JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: You want to change the Miranda rule to say: Tell someone their rights and unless they explicitly say "I don't want to talk to you," then they implicitly under virtually any circumstance haven't. That's what you believe the rule in Miranda and Butler and Davis sets forth?''

</blockquote>

To which Scalia responds that it sounds good to him:

<blockquote>

''JUSTICE SCALIA: Why shouldn't we have a rule which simply says if you don't want to be interrogated, all you have to say is "I don't want to answer your questions"?''

</blockquote>

Sadly, Scalia won. The opinion issues on party lines with Kennedy swinging right. ''[http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1470.pdf Berghuis v. Thompkins.]''
{{wl-publish: 2010-05-31 21:00:00 -0700 | abassos }}

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:18, January 22, 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	As avid readers of this blog are aware (from [[/~~content/scotus-%E2%80%93-miranda-case-du~~-~~jour~~ my March post here]]), the high Court has been considering the question of whether 3 hours of silence followed by a confession is a waiver of one's Miranda rights. The following exchange from oral argument nicely sums up both the internal dynamic and the upshot of [http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1470.pdf today's ruling]:	+	As avid readers of this blog are aware (from [[Blog:Main/SCOTUS_-_Miranda_Case_Du_Jour \| my March post here]]), the high Court has been considering the question of whether 3 hours of silence followed by a confession is a waiver of one's Miranda rights. The following exchange from oral argument nicely sums up both the internal dynamic and the upshot of [http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1470.pdf today's ruling]:

	<blockquote>		<blockquote>

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:03, December 21, 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	As avid readers of this blog are aware (from [[~~Blog:Main~~/~~scotus_~~%E2%80%~~93_Miranda_Case_Du_Jour\|~~my March post here]]), the high Court has been considering the question of whether 3 hours of silence followed by a confession is a waiver of one's Miranda rights. The following exchange from oral argument nicely sums up both the internal dynamic and the upshot of [http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1470.pdf today's ruling]:	+	As avid readers of this blog are aware (from [[/content/scotus-%E2%80%93-miranda-case-du-jour my March post here]]), the high Court has been considering the question of whether 3 hours of silence followed by a confession is a waiver of one's Miranda rights. The following exchange from oral argument nicely sums up both the internal dynamic and the upshot of [http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1470.pdf today's ruling]:

	<blockquote>		<blockquote>