skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

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: 66937 Find in a Library
Title: SELF-INCRIMINATION AND CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE MIRANDA V ARIZONA AND BEYOND
Journal: WAKE FOREST LAW REVIEW  Volume:15  Issue:2  Dated:(APRIL 1979)  Pages:171-206
Author(s): L V SUNDERLAND
Corporate Author: Wake Forest University
School of Law
United States of America
Date Published: 1979
Page Count: 36
Sponsoring Agency: National Endowment for the Humanities

Wake Forest University
Winston-Salem, NC 27109
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: HISTORICAL RATIONALES AND PRINCIPLES UNDERLYING MIRANDA V. ARIZONA AND SUBSEQUENT SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ARE DISCUSSED AS A BASIS FOR DETERMINING THE COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF CASES INVOLVING SELF-INCRIMINATION.
Abstract: IN MIRANDA, THE COURT HELD THAT A PERSON IN CUSTODY MUST, PRIOR TO INTERROGATION, BE CLEARLY INFORMED OF HIS RIGHTS AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION. THE MIRANDA DECISION IS NOT A WELL-REASONED OR WELL-SUPPORTED OPINION. THE COURT'S UNDERSTANDING OF COMPULSION AND THE CREATION OF THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL ARE NOT FIRMLY SUPPORTED BY THE LITERAL MEANING OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, THE INTENT OF THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION, THE HISTORY AND RATIONALES OF THE PRINCIPLES INVOLVED, THE THEORETICAL BASIS OF GOVERNMENT, OR BY SOUND INTERNAL PRECEDENT. THE ROOTS OF THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION IN ENGLISH LAW GREW OUT OF THE PRACTICES OF ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS. BY THE EARLY 18TH CENTURY, THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION EXISTED IN ALL PROCEEDINGS IN ENGLAND EXCEPT IN THE PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION. IN CONTRAST, AMERICAN HISTORICAL RECORDS REVEAL LITTLE OF THE RATIONALE UNDERLYING THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION. IN CONSTITUIONAL TERMS, THE RATIONALES UNDERLYING THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION AND THE CONFESSION RULE SEEM LOGICALLY TO MERGE IN THE FIFTH AMENDMENT BECAUSE OF THE ELEMENT OF COMPULSION IN EACH. NEVERTHELESS, LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE AMENDMENT FAILS TO JUSTIFY THE MIRANDA HOLDING AND ITS INCLUSION OF CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION WITHIN THE RIGHT. AS A CONSEQUENCE, A NUMBER OF SELF-INCRIMINATION CASES DECIDED BY THE BURGER COURT, SUCH AS OREGON V. HASS (1975) AND MICHIGAN V. TUCKER (1974) HAVE NOT BEEN EXTENDED TO INCLUDE SITUATIONS WHICH INVOLVE ARGUABLE VIOLATIONS OF THE MIRANDA-BASED RIGHT TO COUNSEL OR COROLLARY WARNINGS. INSTEAD, SUCH DECISIONS MAY REFLECT MERE POLICY PREFERENCES OF THE COURT. THE WARREN AND BURGER COURTS WOULD HAVE BETTER SERVED THE CONSTITUTION AND AMERICAN DEMOCRACY IF THEY HAD UTILIZED THE HISTORICAL RATIONALES OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHT IN DRAFTING THEIR DECISIONS. FOOTNOTES ARE INCLUDED. (LWM)
Index Term(s): Constitutional Rights/Civil Liberties; Judicial decisions; Miranda rights; Right against self incrimination; US Supreme Court
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=66937

*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.