The Court of Appeals’ decision to invalidate a pre-arraignment interviewing technique by the Queens District Attorney’s Office “fundamentally, dangerously and dramatically” misinterpreted the purpose of Miranda warnings, prosecutors have argued in papers before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Prosecutors also argued that defendants’ rights were protected in the pre-arraignment interview process, which they said was designed not only to help authorities gather information about crimes but also to aid suspects who could offer information absolving them of wrongdoing.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]