Document Type
Article
Publication Date
1-1989
Abstract
Professor Yale Kamisar, the country's foremost scholar of Miranda and police interrogation, presents an analysis and critique of the Supreme Court's latest interpretation of Miranda. In Duckworth, a 5-4 Court upheld the "if and when" language systematically used by the Hammond, Indiana, Police Department: "We have no way of giving you a lawyer, but one will be appointed for you, if you wish, if and when you go to court." The real issue was whether the police effectively conveyed the substance of a vital part of Miranda: the right to have a lawyer appointed prior to any questioning. Professor Kamisar argues that the language upheld is unnecessarily confusing and misleading and that the best explanation for the Hammond police's continued use of this language is that it lessens the likelihood of an assertion of rights.
Recommended Citation
Kamisar, Yale. "Duckworth v. Eagan: A Little-Noticed Miranda Case that May Cause Much Mischief." Crim. L. Bull. 25 (1989): 550-61.
Included in
Constitutional Law Commons, Courts Commons, Criminal Procedure Commons, Law Enforcement and Corrections Commons, Supreme Court of the United States Commons
Comments
Posted with the permission of Thomson Reuters.