Miranda v. Arizona: White Dissent: Subsection III Summary

  • White accuses the Supreme Court of making this dramatic change that goes against 70 years of precedent. He asks, what suddenly changed? What rush of new evidence has appeared? Nothing. Nada. Zip.
  • White brings some real-world examples to the discussion by arguing against the idea that being questioned in custody is always coercive.
  • He gives examples of basic questions police might ask ("Do you have anything to say?") and says that questions such as these aren't forcing the defendant to answer.
  • He goes on to say that it is "not rational" (WhiteDissent.III.4) to say that all confessions that come from interrogations are forced.
  • White wraps up by reminding us that the Fifth Amendment says that only confessions that are forced can be thrown out. So, anything said by defendants that are not being forced to talk, says White, are fair game.