State Supreme Courts and the US Supreme Court's Post-Miranda Rulings

• NCJ Number: 79456
• Journal: Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume: 72 Issue: 3 Dated: (Fall 1981) Pages: 886-913
• Author(s): J Gruhl
• Date Published: 1981
• Length: 28 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This article evaluates two hypotheses about the Miranda ruling: that the State supreme courts eroded the Miranda principles first enunciated by the Warren Court and that the State supreme courts eroded the Miranda principles more than the Burger Court had.

Abstract

The first hypothesis is shown to be accurate. Most courts permitted prosecutors to use illegally obtained statements to impeach defendants' credibility, to use statements made after police gave confusing warnings, and to use statements made when police resumed interrogation after suspects had cut off interrogation by demanding silence. The second hypothesis is generally not suppported. Though some courts read Harris v. New York as a cue to relax enforcement of the Miranda principles and to allow prosecutors to use defendants' silence to impeach their credibility, most did not. Also most courts did not allow prosecutors to use statements made when police refused to stop interrogation after suspects had asked them to cease. However, it is noted that some courts, such as those of Florida, Indiana, and Mississippi, were prone to erode the principles, while others, such as the Colorado and Wyoming courts, were not. The southern and midwestern courts were most prone to erode Miranda, while the western and eastern courts were least prone to do so. The bureaucratic model is most useful in characterizing the relationship of the Supreme Court and the lower courts as it affects Miranda policy. This model states that the Supreme Court establishes policy and the lower courts impose bureaucratic restraints. In addition, the model suggests that Court policy which is clear is more likely to be implemented by the lower courts than policy which is not clear. While Miranda was clear, the Burger Court's rulings which weakened Miranda were not particularly clear. Consequently, they did not result in as much erosion of the Miranda principles by State supreme courts as observers seemed to expect. Still, if the Court does continue to weaken Miranda, many of the State supreme courts probably will follow. It would be ironic if, after the battle to implement the Miranda principles had been largely won, the Burger Court sacrificed the victory. Tables and 150 notes are given. (Author summary modified)