Miranda is alive and well, at least in Tennessee.

Criminal law is not my biggest area to work, but I do some.  Its a bit of a fascination to me, since it has to do with the state’s taking away someone’s liberty, possessions and sometimes life.

Ever since my first Criminal Law class in law school, I remember there being a question as to whether or not Miranda warnings were still necessary and viable.  Why?  Because there all over TV.  Watch any given police show at least twice and you will be introduced to them.  Matter of fact, most frequent TV watchers can cite the warning better than any law student, because they hear it, or hear of it, all the time.

So, in Tennessee v. Dailey the question was raised in a Tennessee case as to when the officer’s should have Mirandized the accused.  The officers effectively used the “question first” technique on their target suspect, got him to confess, then Mirandized him.   So, it was not a question of whether or not he was Mirandized.  They did that.  It was a question of when.

It seems to me that this case is about changing the way interrogations have been conducted in Tennessee.  The “question first” technique was ruled against in 2004 by the US Supreme Court.  Apparently that memo didn’t make it to the officers.  Hence, a person who plead guilty to murder walks.  Man, that’s a hard lesson for society to swallow.

This entry was posted on January 6, 2009 at 10:02 am and is filed under Criminal Law. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.