Miranda Laws: McNeil v. Wisconsin
Jun 14, 1991
Follow Similar Programs
Discussion focused on the 25th anniversary of Miranda v. Arizona, in the wake of the McNeil v. Wisconsin case, which undermines the strength of the Miranda decision. In McNeil v. Wisconsin, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 .. Read More
Discussion focused on the 25th anniversary of Miranda v. Arizona, in the wake of the McNeil v. Wisconsin case, which undermines the strength of the Miranda decision. In McNeil v. Wisconsin, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 split decision that suspects represented by a lawyer in one case may be questioned about a different case without the presence of a lawyer. In this case, the defendant had been arrested for a burglary and agreed to answer questions about a separate murder case, without the presence of a lawyer. The police failed to inform the individual of his Miranda rights, he made incriminating statements and was later found guilty of the murder. Jamin Raskin discussed the history and implications of the Miranda decision, a pivotal case in securing the rights of the accused. It compelled that officers of the law make known to arrestees their rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments: protection from self-incrimination, and the right to counsel. Raskin warned of other cases since Miranda which have weakened it, and he considered several areas not protected by Miranda. Other cases discussed: In Astoria Federal Savings v. Solimino, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that workers who accuse their employers of age discrimination may sue in federal court, even when their claims have been thrown out by state agencies. In Burns v. U.S., the Court ruled 5-4 that federal judges must warn criminal defendants if they are going to impose stronger sentences than those listed in the new congressional guidelines.