Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Miranda v. Arizona (view source)

Revision as of 03:51, July 18, 2007

497 bytes added ,  03:51, July 18, 2007
added key case
Line 10: Line 10:     
Conservatives objected strenuously to this decision, which freed  many criminals who had not received these warnings. Some historians have recently cited ''Miranda'' for a "complete collapse in society."{{fact}}
 
Conservatives objected strenuously to this decision, which freed  many criminals who had not received these warnings. Some historians have recently cited ''Miranda'' for a "complete collapse in society."{{fact}}
 +
 +
A majority of the [[Rehnquist Court]] was on record with the opinion that the [[U.S. Constitution]] does not require a reading of the Miranda warning.  But in ''Dickerson v. United States'', 530 U.S. 428 (2000), a 7-2 opinion written by Chief Justice [[William Rehnquist]] upheld the Miranda warnings by saying that "the warnings have become part of our national culture." Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] railed against this decision in dissent, but the Miranda warnings remain mandatory to this day.
 
[[Category:US Supreme Court Cases]]
 
[[Category:US Supreme Court Cases]]
Aschlafly
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,500

edits

Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:MobileDiff/238835"

Navigation menu