Dateline: 12/07/99
Updated 04/19/2000

This is what it says:

The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way, unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination.

"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to consult an attorney before questioning. You have the right to have your attorney present with you during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be  appointed for you at no expense to you. You may choose to exercise these rights at any time."

The bottom line is, if you're arrested and confess before being being informed of your rights -- even if you're a lawyer, a career criminal, or the world's biggest NYPD Blue fan -- your confession can't be used. The thing is, in 1968, two years after the Supreme Court's Miranda ruling, Congress passed a law allowing Federal judges to decided whether a confession -- Miranda-compliant or not -- was voluntary. The law was largely ignored, under the assumption that Miranda took precedence.

And that's what the 9 Justices will begin considering on April 19, and rule on between now and June: whether Federal courts can indeed use voluntary confessions offered before the suspect heard the magic words. As is our habit here, though, we're not going to wait until June: So let's put on our robes, and decide:

You might also be interested in...