Thursday, May 26, 2005
CrimProf Yale Kamisar has posted Dickerson v. United States: The Case That Disappointed Miranda's Critics - And Then Its Supporters on SSRN. Here's the abstract:
It is difficult, if not impossible, to
discuss Dickerson v. United States intelligently without discussing
Miranda, whose constitutional status Dickerson reaffirmed (or, one
might say, resuscitated). It is also difficult, if not impossible, to
discuss the Dickerson case intelligently without discussing cases the
Court has handed down in the five years since Dickerson was decided.
The hard truth is that in those five years the reaffirmation of
Miranda's constitutional status has become less and less meaningful.
In this paper I want to focus on the Court's characterization of statements elicited in violation of the Miranda warnings as not actually "coerced" or "compelled" but obtained merely in violation of Miranda's "prophylactic rules." This terminology has plagued the Miranda doctrine and puzzled and provoked many commentators since then - Justice Rehnquist utilized this label to describe and to diminish Miranda - and he was the first Justice ever to do so - thirty-one years ago."
To obtain a paper, click here. [Mark Godsey]