Today the Supreme Court handed down a 5-4 decision interpreting Miranda v. Arizona in which the dissent criticizes the majority for not being true to Miranda and concludes with the following warning:
Under today’s new, “reality”-based approach to the doctrine, perhaps these and other principles of our Miranda jurisprudence will, like the custody standard, now be ripe for modification. Then, bit by bit, Miranda will lose the clarity and ease of application that has long been viewed as one of its chief justifications.
Here’s the trivia question: Was the dissent arguing that the Court should rule for the defendant or for the government? Answer below the fold...
Answer: The Government. Given that two of the dissenting Justices want to overturn Miranda entirely, and the other two have so far joined opinions cutting it back “bit by bit,” this is a rather curious sort of argument.