Supreme Court Overrules Michigan v. Jackson:
With everyone thinking about the Supreme Court of the future this morning, I want to point out that there is also a current Court that is still in session. Yes, it's true! Indeed, today's Court handed down a big decision today in the criminal procedure area: In Montejo v. Louisiana, the Supreme Court overruled Michigan v. Jackson, a Miranda decision that has long been a controversial case. The vote was a predictable 5-4. There's lots to talk about with Montejo, although with all the Sotomayor news, it's not clear how much attention it will receive in the legal blogosphere. I'll try to have some commentary on it soon.
Is it accurate to call Michigan v. Jackson a Miranda decision? Don't want to quibble needlessly, but seems like it's important to keep 5th and 6th amendment issues/questions/concerns as distinct as possible in this area (and especially given the scope/purpose of the remand in Montejo), just for the sake of clarity.
I was thinking the same thing. I'm also somewhat surprised that Kennedy signed onto that concurrence. He's usually pretty big on respecting recent decisions.
Of course, I say that as someone who took the same approach as Breyer, Belton may not be ideal but it was the best option and Gant is just going to cause a lot of problems (ok enough thread tangents for me).
It's been a while since I've had criminal procedure, but it seems to me that this decision doesn't square with Massiah v. United States. There's no discussion of Massiah in the opinion, though it is cited. Is there something I'm missing?
I know Rehnquist's dissent in Michigan v. Jackson distinguished Massiah on the grounds that "the nature of the police conduct was such that it would have been impossible to find a valid waiver of the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel," but I've never known the Court itself to have adopted that reading of Massiah.
While his point was a valid one, writing a separate occurence to make it and, worse, writing in such a personal and aggressive fashion was poor form. Remember this when, in the coming weeks, you hear questions raised about Sonia Sotomayor's judicial temperment.
Perhaps there's not much danger of Alito isolating himself because of it; Souter's leaving, and Stevens and Ginsburg are probably not staying too long.
I don't know what to make of Kennedy joining that concurrence. Seems out of character. Maybe Anon321 is right: maybe he and Alito are just really, really pissed off about Gant.
I'm curious how this will affect Rothgery, which has been causing headaches in Texas.
Two of the four considerations -- workability and reliance interests -- seem to call for the exercise of empathy. There is no metric in the constitution that will help a judge to determine either a rule's "workability" or the extent of "reliance." They have to figure that out by looking at the consequences of the ruling, and considering it from the viewpoints of others.
Just sayin'.
I'm fairly sure that whether the decision was well reasoned would be the most important criteria and the presiding one.
Come on. This is simply another license for 6th Amendment police abuse, and prey on the slow-witted, under-educated, and people unaware of their Constitutional rights when being stopped,questioned and arrested by police, who don't always operate under altruistic motives. It's another strike against Urban Americans (mostly minorities) by the four White conservative male justices and Clarence Thomas.
I can easily see how a Latina born in a South Bronx housing project who worked under NYC DA Robert Morgenthau could add much needed perspective on this issue.
--Cobra
They'd have to be very very very "slow-witted" to be "unaware of their Constitutional rights," however, since the police are still required under Miranda to inform them of those rights before interrogating them. (They'd also have to be so poor that they can't afford a television, and so unpopular that they have no friends with televisions, since everyone who watches television is aware of his or her rights; every American -- okay, except Amish people -- has heard the Miranda warnings hundreds or thousands of times in his/her life.)
"They'd have to be very very very "slow-witted" to be "unaware of their Constitutional rights,"
You really want to sign your name to that one, considering the state of civics education in America?
--Cobra
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.