Constitutional Law
Aug. 3, 2022
Slicing the Atom
Culminating in Vega, the U.S. Supreme Court has chosen to define the "atom" of the constitutional right prohibiting the use of compelled statements as including only the nucleus of bona fide compelled statements and not the cloud of protection of Miranda warnings that cluster around that nucleus.
2nd Appellate District, Division 5
Brian M. Hoffstadt
Presiding Justice California Court of Appeal
UCLA School of Law, 1995
"There is power in words. What you say is what you get."
The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Vega v. Tekoh, 142 S. Ct. 2095 (2022) aptly illustrates the wisdom of Zig Ziglar's words.
In Vega, a person acquitted after trial sued state officials for damages for violating his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1963) by introducing his un-Mirandized statement into ev...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In