•  
  •  
 

Document Type

Article

Media Type

Text

Abstract

This article explains the United States Supreme Court holding that police, upon a suspect's equivocal reference to their Fifth Amendment right to the presence of counsel during interrogation, are no longer required to clarify the suspect's true intent. The author contends the majority was erroneous in holding equivocal waivers to be equivalent to clear waivers, and that the decision could not be reconciled with Miranda and its progeny. The Court has impermissibly placed the burden of a mastery of the law on the less knowledgeable suspect, and consideration need be given to existing lower court proposals, or a modification thereof to preserve a suspect's valuable Fifth Amendment right.

First Page

239

Last Page

285

Publication Date

11-1-1995

Department

College of Law

ISSN

0734-1490

Language

eng

Publisher

Northern Illinois University Law Review

Included in

Law Commons

Share

COinS
 
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.