NCJ Number
117600
Journal
Prosecutor Volume: 22 Issue: 4 Dated: (Spring 1989) Pages: 35-39
Date Published
1989
Length
5 pages
Annotation
The contentions by Fred Inbau and James Manak that the Miranda rule consumes an inordinate amount of judicial resources, frustrates the extraction of confessions, and interferes with crime prevention and detection are exaggerations that overlook the importance of Miranda in maintaining strong judicial oversight of interrogation practices and protecting individual human rights.
Abstract
Inbau and Manak contend that considerable judicial time and effort have been expended on Miranda and its progeny. However, the Supreme Court has decided just over two such cases each year between 1966 and 1986, using 13 pages per case. Circuit courts decided 980 Miranda cases totaling 2,155 pages in the same period. Inbau and Manak have failed to demonstrate that these cases have produced an inordinate expenditure of resources or that a voluntariness test would place a lighter burden on the courts. In addition, Miranda has not succeeded in equalizing the balance between the accused person and the police. The small number of cases in which confessions are crucial to a resolution of a case also indicates the limited practical importance of Miranda. Thus, the debate over the Miranda rule is largely a symbolic conflict over the future direction of American criminal procedure. The rule should be preserved or strengthened, because we must not abandon our rights in the interests of saving time, money, or resources. Footnotes.