Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHuber, Jeffrey J.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2013-02-15T16:03:55Z
dc.date.available2013-02-15T16:03:55Z
dc.date.issued1993en_US
dc.identifier.citation26 Creighton L. Rev. 117 (1992-1993)en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10504/39988
dc.description.abstractINTRODUCTION|In Miranda v. Arizona, a five to four majority of the United States Supreme Court articulated the potentially endangered status of the Fifth Amendment. Specifically, the Court in Miranda was concerned that a suspect's psychological disadvantage during police interrogation would severely undermine the suspect's ability to invoke the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. To preserve this right, the Court outlined several procedural safeguards that must be executed before a suspect is subjected to custodial "interrogation." The Court spelled out the now-familiar procedural safeguards known as the Miranda warnings..en_US
dc.publisherCreighton University School of Lawen_US
dc.titleObjective Test for Interrogation in Nebraska, Anen_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.rights.holderCreighton Universityen_US
dc.description.volume26en_US
dc.publisher.locationOmaha, Nebraskaen_US
dc.title.workCreighton Law Reviewen_US
dc.description.note1992-1993en_US
dc.description.pages117en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record