Supreme Court Backs Off Strict Enforcement of Miranda Rights

And it will have a substantial impact on police practices, said Charles Weisselberg, a law professor at UC Berkeley

The California-based Criminal Justice Legal Foundation praised the justices for paring back the “artificial rule” set in the Miranda decision. The court “recognized the practical realities that the police face in dealing with suspects,” said Kent Scheidegger, the group’s legal director. But Steven Shapiro, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the case “demonstrates the power of custodial interrogation to wear down the defendant’s willpower, which is what Miranda was designed to prevent.”In her dissent, Sotomayor faulted the majority for announcing a “new general principle of law” that will be confusing in practice.”Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent — which, counter intuitively, requires them to speak,” she said. Joining her in dissent was Justices John P aul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. The majority ruling is in line with the position taken by the O bama administration and Solicitor General Elena Kagan, who has been nominated to the Supreme Court. In December, Kagan filed a brief on the side of Michigan prosecutors and argued that “the government need not prove that a suspect expressly waived his rights.david.savage@latimes.com

Copyright © 2010 the Los Angeles Times

This Article First Appeared in The Black Truth News Volume 1 Issue 12  November 2010

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *