CRIMINAL LAW - SELF-INCRIMINATION - THREAT OF JOB LOSS TO TRANSIENT EMPLOYEE DOES NOT RENDER SUBSEQUENT STATEMENTS INADMISSIBLE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS - UNITED STATES EX REL SANNEY V MONTANYE, 500 F 2D 411 (2D CIR 1974)

• NCJ Number: 19729
• Journal: Texas Law Review Volume: 53 Issue: 3 Dated: (MARCH 1975) Pages: 597-603
• Author(s): ANON
• Date Published: 1975
• Length: 7 pages
• Corporate Author: University of Texas
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

THE AUTHOR CRITICIZES THIS INTERPRETATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PROTECTION AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATING STATEMENTS BASED ON MIRANDA AND OTHER CASE LAW PROHIBITING THE USE OF INHERENT COERCION.

Abstract

HE MAINTAINS THAT THE SANNEY COURT, INSTEAD OF BASING ITS OPINION ON THE SUBSTANIALITY OF ECONOMIC SANCTIONS AND THE 'TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES' TEST, SHOULD HAVE COMBINED THE 1967 SUPREME COURT HOLDING IN GARRITY V. NEW JERSEY THAT THREATS OF JOB LOSS ARE INHERENTLY COERCIVE WITH THE MIRANDA PRINCIPLE OF PROCEDURAL RESTRAINTS ON INHERENTLY COERCIVE STATEMENTS. THIS, HE INSISTS, WOULD HAVE LED THE SANNEY COURT TO RULE THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF IMMMUNITY, THREATENING A JOB LOSS RENDERS ANY SUBSEQUENT STATEMENT INVOLUNTARY AS A MATTER OF LAW. FURTHERMORE, ANALOGOUS TO MIRANDA, VIOLATION OF THIS SPECIFIC LIMITATION ON INTERROGATION PROCEDURES WOULD RENDER THE STATEMENTS INADMISSIBLE, REGARDLESS OF ANY APPARENT DEGREE OF VOLUNTARINESS. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT)