五十年后回看“米兰达诉亚利桑那”判决

The Miranda Case Fifty Years Later

米兰达案判决之后,美国最高法院通过十一个判例来限缩米兰达规则的适用范围。最高法院保守派法官比例的变化,导致米兰达规则受挫。米兰达判决书中有三种异议意见,多数意见法官其实受到了保守派的影响,米兰达判决可以说是一个妥协性的判决。米兰达规则受挫的其中一个原因是警方讯问策略的改变,实践中嫌疑人很少自始至终保持沉默。2013年的萨利纳斯诉德克萨斯州一案,则是米兰达规则受挫的例证。法官只是抽象肯定嫌疑人援引第五修正案的权利,要求普通人负举证责任证明警方将其列入犯罪嫌疑对象。在保障嫌疑人及时会见律师权利与沉默权方面,美国最高法院只作了部分努力,留下了许多模糊地带,特定的案例中保守派法官意见往往占优势。

After U.S. Supreme Court decided Miranda v. Arizona in 1966, subsequent Court try to denounce the Miranda Rule in another eleven cases concerning the scope and application of Miranda Rule. The Rule was definitely defeated by four new conservative Judges who were nominated by President Nixon. If we look back the three dissents in Miranda which might have bad influence on the majority, the final decision actually might be a compromise in Miranda. One of the reasons that Miranda Rule failed was for the changes of police investigating tactics and so the criminal suspects rarely insist in the right of silence all along the actual interrogating process. The case of Salinas v. Texas in 2013 is absolutely an example of the failure of Miranda Rule. The majority believed that criminal suspects should have the burden of proof to persuade court that police had focusing on him because of crime although they generally announced that suspects can invoke the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court just have done some progress in guaranteeing the Miranda Rule, nevertheless made vague judgments for some reasons which also means conservative judges often control the court.