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: 99112 Add to Shopping cart Find in a Library
Title: Over-Reaction - The Mischief of Miranda v Arizona
Journal: The Prosecutor  Volume:18  Issue:4  Dated:(Winter 1985)  Pages:7-14
Author(s): F E Inbau
Date Published: 1985
Page Count: 8
Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Justice/
Rockville, MD 20849
NCJRS Photocopy Services
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/
NCJRS paper reproduction
Box 6000, Dept F
Rockville, MD 20849
United States of America

NCJRS Photocopy Services
Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
United States of America
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: The impact of the warning requirements established in Miranda v. Arizona on police effectiveness is discussed and recommendations are made for revision of standards for evidence admissibility.
Abstract: Embellishments of the Miranda warnings and the ritualization of the written waiver as used by some police departments undoubtedly have a tendency to dissuade many guilty suspects from submitting to police questioning. As a result, many cases are never brought to trial because of the lack of a confession which otherwise might have been obtained. Moreover, even when police have obtained a confession following an attempt to comply with the Miranda mandate, the confession is considered flawed because of some perceived error with respect to the warnings, the waiver procedure, or the interrogation efforts. There also is the erroneous expenditure of time spent on deciding issues related to the Miranda warnings that could better be spent on more important issues. The only aspect of Miranda that does not impede law enforcement occurs at trial when a confession is presented in evidence. Jurors, as well as some judges, are favorably impressed by the warnings and formal waiver of the right to counsel and to remain silent. At the earliest opportunity, the U.S. Supreme Court should overturn Miranda or else uphold the validity of the test of confession admissibility enacted by Congress shortly after Miranda. It provides that a confession shall be admissible if it meets the test of voluntariness. Arizona enacted an identical provision on admissibility and the determination of voluntariness in 1969. A test case should be brought. In the meanwhile, police and prosecutors should reconsider their Miranda practices and courts should moderate their apprehension over possible reversals because of shortcomings in Miranda formalities. A total of 35 footnotes are included.
Index Term(s): Arrest procedures; Judicial decision compliance; Miranda rights; Police effectiveness; Police policies and procedures; Rules of evidence
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.