Reconsidering Miranda

Abstract

Few decisions of the Warren Court have attracted as much attention and controversy as its 1966 ruling in Miranda v. Arizona. Miranda relied upon the fifth amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination to impose limits on custodial police interrogation. Recently Miranda has become the focus of renewed debate. The Department of Justice, in a 120-page report endorsed by Attorney General Edwin Meese III, attacks the Miranda decision as an illegitimate act of judicial policy-making that the Court should now overrule. Talk about "overruling" Miranda usually obscures the fact that Miranda contains not one holding but a complex series of holdings. To assess the soundness of the Justice Department's case, we need to begin by considering the . . . two holdings in depth.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 16 citations exist upstream.