 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jones v. United States8/16/2001
the Superior Court is not optimal. However, the Miranda protections are such an important part of criminal jurisprudence that these formidable considerations do not warrant resigned silence.
Finally, the Miranda doctrine does not exist in a vacuum. Aside from the obvious implications for those in custody, Fifth Amendment jurisprudence substantially affects other facets of constitutional criminal procedure as well. For example, in the recently decided case of Texas v. Cobb, both Chief Justice Rehnquist, writing for the majority, and Justice Kennedy, in his concurrence, relied heavily on Miranda's fundamental safeguards to support their respective opinions limiting the scope of a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel, once attached, to like "offense under the Blockburger test." 121 S. Ct. 1335, 1343 (2001). Both appeared to view the protections afforded by Miranda as a safety net for situations not implicating the "offense-specific" Sixth Amendment. See Cobb, supra, 121 S. Ct. at 1342 n.2 (Rehnquist, C.J.) ("Even though the Sixth Amendment right to counsel has not attached to uncharged offenses, defendants retain the ability under Miranda to refuse any police questioning, and, indeed, charged defendants presumably have met with counsel and have had the opportunity to discuss whether it is advisable to invoke those Fifth Amendment rights. Thus, in all but the rarest of cases, the Court's decision today will have no impact whatsoever upon a defendant's ability to protect his Sixth Amendment right."); Cobb, supra, 121 S. Ct. at 1344 (Kennedy, J., concurring) (" t is difficult to understand the utility of a Sixth Amendment rule that operates to invalidate a confession given by the free choice of suspects who have received proper advice of their Miranda rights but waived them nonetheless."). The Cobb decision makes clear that we should be cognizant of the fact that any decision impacting the scope of Miranda also has a domino effect on other fundamental areas of criminal law. Cf. Dickerson, supra, 530 U.S. at 443-44.
As the Supreme Court recently reaffirmed in its decision recognizing the constitutional significance of Miranda, the Miranda doctrine is premised on a bright-line application of a prophylactic rule. See Dickerson, supra, 530 U.S. at 444. A rule limiting the "express questioning" prong of Innis to questions reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response, in my view, departs from law we are obligated to follow, and is contrary to the bright-line policy behind Miranda.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 District of Columbia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|