Английская Википедия:Duckworth v. Eagan
Шаблон:Use mdy dates Шаблон:Infobox SCOTUS case Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195 (1989), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with police behavior when issuing the Miranda warning. The Court's decision was seen as weakening Miranda's protections.[1]
Background
After being questioned in regards to the stabbing of a woman, Gary Eagan was improperly read his Miranda Rights when police told him that he would be provided a lawyer "if and when you go to court." During the police investigation, Eagan did not make any incriminating statements, and waived his Miranda rights. The next day, Eagan was questioned again by police, and signed a waiver with the correct Miranda language. During the interrogation, Eagan confessed to the stabbing of the woman and revealed physical evidence of the crime committed. Later, Eagan claimed that the difference between the language in the first waiver he signed, and the second waiver he signed, made his confession inadmissible in a court of law.[2]
Opinion of the Court
Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the opinion for the Court.[3] The Supreme Court held that it was not necessary that the warnings be given in the exact form described in the Miranda decision,[4] provided the warnings as a whole fully informed the suspect of his or her rights.[5]
References
Further reading
External links
- Шаблон:Caselaw source
- Duckworth v. Eagan: A semantical debate or the continuing debasement of Miranda?
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ Шаблон:Cite web
- ↑ Шаблон:Ussc.
- ↑ Шаблон:Ussc.
- ↑ (Chapter 5, page 141 of Criminal Investigation "Suspect's Response: Waiver And Alternatives; #4)
- Английская Википедия
- History of law enforcement in the United States
- Miranda warning case law
- 1989 in United States case law
- United States Supreme Court cases
- United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court
- Страницы, где используется шаблон "Навигационная таблица/Телепорт"
- Страницы с телепортом
- Википедия
- Статья из Википедии
- Статья из Английской Википедии