Fifty years ago, a closely divided Supreme Court decided a criminal procedure case known to almost every American – Miranda v. Arizona. To protect a suspect against what it saw as overbearing incommunicado police interrogation, the Court adopted the now (in)famous “Miranda warnings” – that is, the litany of rights that a police officer must tell a suspect, and the suspect must voluntarily waive, before the prosecution may use a confession obtained from custodial interrogation (“You have the right to remain silent. If you give up that right...”). Some argue that the Miranda warnings allow the guilty to go free. Others argue that the warnings are necessary to avoid violating suspects’ constitutional rights.
Join us for a debate over the issue of whether the Supreme Court should overrule its decision in Miranda.
More About the Speakers
Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law, S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of Utah
President, American Civil Liberties Union, and Centennial Professor, Brooklyn Law School
Senior Legal Research Fellow