skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 98485 Find in a Library
Title: Fifth Amendment - Fifth Amendment Exclusionary Rule - The Assertion and Subsequent Waiver of the Right to Counsel - Oregon v Bradshaw, 103 S Ct 2830 (1983)
Author(s): L A Weiss
Date Published: 1983
Page Count: 19
Format: Document
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Oregon v. Bradshaw (1983) examines the Court's interpretation of precedent and its decision to broaden the waiver exception to the fifth amendment exclusionary rule, which will allow the police to extract confessions after the suspect asserts the right to counsel.
Abstract: The fifth amendment right against self-incrimination encompasses the right to counsel and the right to remain silent. The U.S. Supreme Court requires that suspects be informed of these rights upon arrest, because the inherent coerciveness of the custodial setting could prompt involuntary confessions absent these safeguards. Once a suspect asserts the right to counsel, a heavy burden has traditionally rested on the State to prove that the right has been waived. In Oregon v. Bradshaw, however, the Court narrowed the scope of the right to counsel during custodial interrogation by making it easier for the State to prove that the right was waived after it was asserted by the suspect. The Court thus restricted one of the fundamental rights established in Miranda v. Arizona and reasserted in Edwards v. Arizona. 'Bradshaw' is the first Supreme Court case to interpret fully the decision in 'Edwards,' which indicated that once the accused requests an attorney, the accused may not be interrogated until an attorney is present. Instead, the Court confused the issue by making a fact-based decision which confused the issue by making a fact-based decision which failed to provide the lower courts and law enforcement agencies with clear constitutional guidelines for determining when an accused who has asserted the right to counsel subsequently waives that right. A total of 145 footnotes are provided.
Index Term(s): Exclusionary rule; Miranda rights; Right against self incrimination; Right to counsel; US Supreme Court decisions; Waiver of rights
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.