NCJ Number
137224
Journal
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume: 82 Issue: 4 Dated: (Winter 1992) Pages: 878-903
Date Published
1992
Length
26 pages
Annotation
In Minnick v. Mississippi, the U.S. Supreme Court extended the fifth amendment protections offered in Edwards v. Arizona that prohibited authorities from initiating questioning of the accused in the absence of counsel. In Minnick, the Court held that this protection is not terminated or suspended when an accused has consulted with his attorney prior to questioning.
Abstract
This case is another in the legacy of Miranda v. Arizona where the Supreme Court articulated the procedures designed to guarantee that police inform criminal suspects of their constitutional rights upon arrest. The author points out that the Court has weakened the Miranda holding, thereby causing confusion where there should be clear and unequivocal guidelines regarding Fifth Amendment protections. The proposal to make all custodial confessions inadmissible in a criminal trial is supported by the ruling in Miranda, Edwards, and Minnick, yet this author contends that these cases do not go far enough to ensure the achievement of Miranda's goals. The solution proposed here would make any custodial confession given outside the presence of an attorney inadmissible and would require that any confession admitted as evidence be accompanied by an intelligent and knowing waiver by the suspect of his fifth amendment rights. This rule would eliminate police abuse of suspects and use of coercive tactics, would ensure that suspects are adequately informed of their rights, and would give the clear and unequivocal guidance to police and courts required by Miranda. 163 notes