This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...

Criminal,
Constitutional Law

Jan. 10, 2000

Gavel Struggle

Overruling Miranda would mean an unpredictable inquiry in each case as to whether a confession was voluntary under the totality of the circumstances.

Erwin Chemerinsky

Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law, UC Berkeley School of Law

Erwin's most recent book is "Worse Than Nothing: The Dangerous Fallacy of Originalism." He is also the author of "Closing the Courthouse," (Yale University Press 2017).

By Erwin Chemerinsky
        In 1968, Congress attempted to overrule Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) by enacting a statute that allows voluntary confessions to be used as evidence even if Miranda warnings were not properly given. For over 30 years, this law, 18 U.S.C. Section 3501, has not been invoked because every Justice Department has concluded that it is unconst...

To continue reading, please subscribe.

Already a subscriber?

Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)