Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
The Miranda RulingIts Past, Present, and Future$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Lawrence S. Wrightsman and Mary L. Pitman

Print publication date: 2010

Print ISBN-13: 9780199730902

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: May 2010

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199730902.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2021. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use. date: 16 January 2021

Limitations of the Original Opinion

Limitations of the Original Opinion

(p.61) 4 Limitations of the Original Opinion
The Miranda Ruling

Lawrence S. Wrightsman

Mary L. Pitman

Oxford University Press

This is the first of four chapters describing different causes for the less-than-anticipated impact of the Miranda decision. The decision was a compromise, and did not go as far as it could have. For example, the justices considered, but rejected, a requirement of an attorney’s presence when the warnings were given. The decision limited the application of the warnings to only those interrogations when the defendant was “in custody,” and the Court was vague about the timing requirements.

Keywords:   burden of proof, conviction rate, false confessions, limitations of Miranda, wrongful convictions

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .