Miranda v. Arizona

Questions for Further Study

• 1. Review the standards set by the Court in Miranda for determining whether a defendant has “waived his privilege against self-incrimination and his right to retained or appointed counsel” (part III). Has the Court backed into another “voluntariness” standard here? Why did Chief Justice Warren not expressly rule that any in-custody interrogation require the presence of counsel? And why would a defendant agree to waive his rights? (In fact, many do.)
• 2. At retrial, Arizona convicted Miranda after presenting testimony by his common-law wife that he had confessed to her that he had committed the abduction and rape. She stated that the confession had been made to her when she visited Miranda in jail, three days after he confessed to the police, and after she confirmed, upon Miranda's inquiry, that police had informed her of his confession to them. Did the use of this evidence actually violate the Supreme Court's ruling in Miranda? Think carefully about Miranda's conversation with his common-law wife. Why did he confess to her?
• 3. The three dissenting opinions in Miranda criticize the Court for moving ahead of the rest of the political system. Does the Supreme Court's making new law and policy constitute a problem? Consider cases since Miranda in which courts have ruled in innovative ways, regarding, for example, abortion (Roe v. Wade, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973) or same-sex marriage (Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, decided by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in 2004).
• 4. Should the rights of the accused be applied on a sliding scale, based on the type of crime? Might, for example, a robbery suspect, undergoing police interrogation, deserve more rights than a murder suspect or than someone detained for suspicion of international terrorism? Why or why not?