Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona,1 the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment—and, more specifically, Miranda warnings—have captured the public’s fascination, and followed a contentious legal course. This month we report on United States v. Capers,2 a path-defining decision issued last month by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which has significant implications for the future of Miranda warnings jurisprudence. The decision, written by Circuit Judge Peter W. Hall and joined by Circuit Judge Rosemary S. Pooler, clarifies the legal standard and burden of proof for courts to apply when determining whether deliberate two-stage interrogations exist and are in violation of Miranda.
Specifically, Capers adopts a totality of circumstances test, under which the government has the burden to disprove deliberateness, or demonstrate curative measures, by a preponderance of the evidence. Only two other circuits—the Seventh and Eighth—have issued decisions reaching these questions. The majority opinion is accompanied by a vigorous dissent by late District Judge David G. Trager, sitting by designation.
Background and History
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
