The Ruling > Dissenting Opinion
"It completely invented a rule of criminal procedure not found in the Constitution.....the Miranda majority opinion was a radical departure from the traditional role of the Supreme Court. The Court does not exist to invent new rules of law, but rather to interpret existing law."
-Andrew Criado, Prosecutor, Virginia Commonwealth (2014 Interview)
-Andrew Criado, Prosecutor, Virginia Commonwealth (2014 Interview)
Dissenting Opinion
Above images: Portraits of the Justices partially and/or fully in support of the State of Arizona. Names from left to right: Tom Clark, John Harlan II, Potter Stewart, Byron White. (Credit: Portraits of Potter Stewart and Byron White from Library of Congress; Portrait of Tom Clark from Harvard Law database; Portrait of John Harlan II from IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. Please see the Annotated Bibliography for further details.)
There were two dissenting opinions and one concurring/dissenting opinion.
General Arguments:
1. The court's position is not supported by the Constitution.
2. The ruling interferes with the police's ability to obtain confessions from criminals.
General Arguments:
1. The court's position is not supported by the Constitution.
2. The ruling interferes with the police's ability to obtain confessions from criminals.
Dissenting Opinion of Justice Harlan with Justice Stewart and Justice White
Key Excerpts:
|
Credit: Landmark Cases of the Supreme Court (Opinion originally published in 1966)
|
Dissenting Opinion of Justice White, with Justice Harlan and Justice Stewart
Key Excerpts:
|
Credit: Landmark Cases of the Supreme Court (Opinion originally published in 1966)
|
Concurring/Dissenting Opinion of Justice Clark
Key Excerpts:
|
Credit: Landmark Cases of the Supreme Court (Opinion originally published in 1966)
|