Miranda v. Arizona, decided in 1966 was a landmark case, and in a sense, was also a land mine for for official misconduct. But, the real compelling question, is whether this case was even necessary. Justice Warren's apprehensions with creating a more clear standard against compelled statements and against throwing out psychological coercion was in fact futile. The underlying policy behind Miranda was to allow a suspect in custody the chance to realize their rights as to confessions in order to provide a bright-line for confessions. Retrospectively speaking, issues that are often raised as legitimate questions to the Supreme Court for review should be answered in their entirety prior to resorting to the old 'reverse and remand' kick-back.
Is that what happened here in Miranda? Was Miranda even needed?
Why did Justice Warren, a defense-liberal proponent, not incorporate the attention given to psychological coercion into the Miranda Rule?
Without question, at the time of the opinion and ever since, the concern with psychological manipulation/coercion of suspects during interrogations was and has been a focal point in assessing the Constitutionality of these measures to extract confessions. In fact, this concern is voiced throughout the majority opinion. However, this concern was not addressed within the narrow holding of Miranda which creates a bright-line standard required by all law enforcement officials to recite particular rights to criminal suspects taken into custody prior to asking questions regarding the commission of a crime.
Miranda Rights read: You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.
Oh yeah, but government sponsored psychological coercion, "It's the truth serum."
