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.



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.