In 1966, the Supreme Court of the United States set out to correct the problems in America’s criminal justice system by creating procedural safeguards in a ground-breaking case: Miranda v. Arizona. These safeguards were created to protect innocent citizens from the psychological pressures and interrogation techniques used by police. However, these intended protections have failed. Subsequent Supreme Court cases have continued to rip apart Miranda’s procedural safeguards by placing a multitude of limitations on the doctrine, causing legal scholars everywhere to question Miranda’s effectiveness. This Comment explores both the history of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments and the foundational cases that Miranda was based upon. Additionally, this Comment will assess the subsequent limitations placed on Miranda itself and how those limitations have created “holes” for law enforcement to work through during interrogations. Lastly, this Comment will look at previous scholars’ arguments on “fixing” Miranda and proposes that the Court should revert to and extend Escobedo v. Illinois in order for Miranda’s intended protections to be successfully carried out.
Anna Amsbaugh, The Return to and Expansion of Escobedo, 44 Campbell L. Rev. 137 (2021).