TITLE

Miranda v. Arizona, 1966

PUB. DATE
August 2017
SOURCE
Miranda v. Arizona, 1966;8/1/2017, p1
SOURCE TYPE
Primary Source Document
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
Presents the record of the Miranda v. Arizona trial of 1966. Rights of anyone accused of a crime under the Constitution; Rules for the interrogation of suspects; Other stipulations of the Act.
ACCESSION #
21212814

 

Related Articles

  • MIRANDA'S FAILURE TO RESTRAIN PERNICIOUS INTERROGATION PRACTICES. White, Welsh S. // Michigan Law Review;Mar2001, Vol. 99 Issue 5, p1211 

    Considers the effectiveness and failures of the safeguards the Miranda versus Arizona case provides in identifying police interrogation processes. Ways of modifying the post-Miranda due process; Response to assertions relating to the basis for regulating interrogation practices; Identification...

  • IN THE STATIONHOUSE AFTER DICKERSON. Weisselberg, Charles D. // Michigan Law Review;Mar2001, Vol. 99 Issue 5, p1121 

    Explores the United States Supreme Court's reaffirmation of the constitutional basis for the Miranda versus Arizona case ruling. Review of the police interrogation training in California; Instruction of officers in California in cases similar to Miranda; Conditions in which training may actually...

  • Miranda stories. Arenella, Peter // Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy;Winter97, Vol. 20 Issue 2, p375 

    Asserts that the negligible impact of the Miranda, a law originating from the Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona, has eliminated the inherent coerciveness of police interrogation in the United States. Case study of Salt Lake police department's implementation of the law; Exaggeration on...

  • IS THE MIRANDA CASELAW REALLY INCONSISTENT? A PROPOSED FIFTH AMENDMENT SYNTHESIS. Dripps, Donald // Constitutional Commentary;Spring2000, Vol. 17 Issue 1, p19 

    Deals with the ruling of the United States Supreme Court in the case, Miranda versus Arizona. Overview of the caselaw regarding police interrogations and confessions made by crime suspects; Characteristics of the majority opinions of the Supreme Court on the Miranda case; Information on...

  • MISSOURI V. SEIBERT: THE MULTIFACTOR TEST SHOULD BE REPLACED WITH A BRIGHT-LINE WARNING RULE TO STRENGTHEN MIRANDA'S CLARITY. Goldberg, Seth // St. John's Law Review;Fall2005, Vol. 79 Issue 4, p1287 

    Proposes that the supplemental warning should be mandatory for officers to recite to suspects in both intentional and unintentional two-step interrogations. History of interrogation law that led to Miranda versus Arizona and the post-Miranda cases; Discussion of the current interrogation...

  • MIRANDA, DICKERSON, AND THE PUZZLING PERSISTENCE OF FIFTH AMENDMENT EXCEPTIONALISM. Schulhofer, Stephen J. // Michigan Law Review;Mar2001, Vol. 99 Issue 5, p941 

    Evaluates the constitutional dimensions on the safeguards of the Miranda versus Arizona lawsuit. Discussion on which restrictions on police interrogation are amended by ordinary Fifth Amendment principles of the United States Constitution; Ways to supplement the Miranda regime to conform it...

  • QUESTIONING THE RELEVANCE OF MIRANDA IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY. Leo, Richard A. // Michigan Law Review;Mar2001, Vol. 99 Issue 5, p1000 

    Questions the assumptions about the effects of the Miranda versus Arizona case. Review of generations of studies assessing Miranda's impact; Analysis of the probable impact on the officials of the criminal justice system in the 21st century; Importance of video taping of police interrogations...

  • INTERROGATIONS AND THE SUPREME COURT.  // Supreme Court Debates;May2011, Vol. 14 Issue 5, p10 

    The article presents an overview of U.S. Supreme Court decisions related to safeguard procedures in interrogations. Reference is made to past cases such as Brown v. Mississippi in 1936, Miranda v. Arizona in 1966, and the more recent Dickerson v. United States in 2000. The application of Miranda...

  • FIFTH AMENDMENT--WILL THE PUBLIC SAFETY EXCEPTION SWALLOW THE MIRANDA EXCLUSIONARY RULE? Drizin, Steven Andrew // Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology;Fall1984, Vol. 75 Issue 3, p692 

    This article argues that the U.S. Supreme Court's public safety exception is unjustifiable in light of both the facts in New York v. Quarles and the Michigan v. Tucker precedent. In New York v. Quarles, the U.S. Supreme Court created a significant exception to the rule prescribed in its historic...

Share

Read the Article

Courtesy of THE LIBRARY OF VIRGINIA

Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics