Charles D. Weisselberg

In the Stationhouse after Dickerson

Miranda v. Arizona1 established the high water mark of the protections afforded an accused during a custodial interrogation. During the decades that followed, the United States Supreme Court allowed Mirandas foundation to erode, inviting a direct challenge to the landmark ruling. In Dickerson v. United States,2 the Court turned back such a challenge and placed Miranda upon a more secure, constitutional footing. This Article explores the impact of Dickerson in the place where Miranda was meant to matter most: the stationhouse. As I have described elsewhere, Supreme Court decisions have influenced a number of California law enforcement agencies to instruct officers that they may continue to interrogate suspects in custody who have asserted their Fifth Amendment right to remain silent or right to counsel.3 Harris v. New York4 and Oregon v. Hass5 permit some statements taken in violation of Miranda to be used for impeachment purposes at trial. Michigan v. Tucker6 and Oregon v. Elstad7 permit some

Review Essay/The Precinct Confessional

Peter Brooks, Troubling Confessions: Speaking Guilt in Law and Literature Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000, x + 207 pp.