End of Miranda warnings?

[Tom Servo]

That's not what the first sentence of the article says. The interrogator doesn't have to tell the suspect anything it looks like.

The Miranda speech still has to be administered. That has not changed. Nor has the ability to exercise your 5th Amendment rights. If you are charged with a crime, you do what every self-defense instructor and lawyer tells us to do: clam up and demand a lawyer before answering any questions.

I note with some irony that in 1966, conservatives thought that Miranda would effectively destroy the ability of the police to prosecute crimes. That didn't turn out to be the case.

(Miranda and his other accomplices were all convicted through an abundance of evidence and witness testimony.)

The Miranda warning has become an integral part of our culture. For what was a very controversial decision at the time, it is now considered to be an unassailable safeguard of our rights.

If the Court was dismantling that in any way, it would be front page news in every newspaper, every day. Politicians and the press would be screaming bloody murder.

Are they doing that? No. Because what the article says is simply wrong. It happens.

 

[KyJim]

This ruling is hardly surprising. I was surprised at the close vote. An accused has always had to affirmatively assert his right to an attorney or to represent himself.

The term "Miranda rights" is a misnomer. The 6th Amendment right to an attorney and the 5th Amendment right to remain silent are trial rights. Historically, the right against self-incrimination only applied to the trial. The right to an attorney attached only when formal legal proceedings began. The court used Miranda and other cases only to aid the trial right against self-incrimination and to representation. They are one of the marks of an "activist" court.