Miranda Laws: McNeil v. Wisconsin
The discussion focused on the 25th anniversary of Miranda v. Arizona, in the wake of the McNeil v. Wisconsin case, which undermines the stre… read more
The discussion focused on the 25th anniversary of Miranda v. Arizona, in the wake of the McNeil v. Wisconsin case, which undermines the strength of the Miranda decision. In McNeil v. Wisconsin, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 split decision that suspects represented by a lawyer in one case may be questioned about a different case without the presence of a lawyer. In this case, the defendant had been arrested for burglary and agreed to answer questions about a separate murder case, without the presence of a lawyer. The police failed to inform the individual of his Miranda rights, he made incriminating statements and was later found guilty of the murder. Jamin Raskin discussed the history and implications of the Miranda decision, a pivotal case in securing the rights of the accused. It compelled that officers of the law make known to arrestees their rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments: protection from self-incrimination, and the right to counsel. close
Related Video
-
School Prayer: Lee v. Weisman
Robert Lee, Principal of the Nathan Bishop Middle School in Providence, RI, explained the reasons why he appealed his ca…
-
Jamie Brown on Judicial Confirmation Hearings
Jamie Brown, talked about how the White House prepares Supreme Court nominees for confirmation hearings. She shepherded …
-
Supreme Court Decision on Campaign Finance
Aaron Blake spoke by telephone about the 5-4 Supreme Court ruling that day on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commis…
-
Interview with Representative-Elect Jamie Raskin
Representative-elect Jamie Raskin (D-MD) spoke with C-SPAN for a House freshman profile interview. He talked about his r…