◆ SpookStack

al REVIEW OF PUBLICATION 1. General Theme of Book As the title of this book suggests its general theme is the development of the rules governing the admissibility of a confession of guilt made by a suspect or prisoner laid down by the Supreme Court of the United States in the cases of Escobedo v. Illinois and Miranda v. Arizona. Briefly, Escobedo holds that a confession elicited by law enforcement officers from a person in custody after the officers fail to advise him of his absolute constitutional right to remain silent and refuse to honor his requests to consult with his retained lawyer is inadmissible against him at his trial because such police action deprives him of his Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel. Briefly, Miranda holds that a confession is inadmissible if it was obtained,by Iaw enforcement officers during in-custody interrogation where they fail to give the prisoner effective "warnings" as to his rights to silence and counsel because such custodial interrogation puts his privilege against self-incrimination, guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment, into jeopardy and its coercive effect must be dispelled by the warnings which are essential procedural safeguards for the proper exercise of his constitutional rights. This publication attempts to trace the route of decision from Escobedo to Miranda by a review of various documents used during the appeals of five cases decided by the courts of four States and one Federal Court of Appeals involving questions left dangling by the Escobedo opinion. These so-called ''Post-Escobedo Cases" are as follows: Vignera v. New York; California v. Stewart; Johnson v. New Jersey; Miranda v. Arizona; and Westover v. United States. With the exception of Johnson v. New Jersey, these cases were decided in the consolidated opinion of the Miranda Decision on June 13, 1966. The Johnson case was decided the following week, on June 20, 1966, Zz. Foreword by Samuel Dash The five-page Foreword by Samuel Dash consists of an explanation of the purpose of this publication and general observations on the Escobedo, Miranda and Johnson holdings. His criticism of the Court is confined to the following observations on the Johnson case in which the Court refused to apply the Miranda requirement on the necessity of the warning in a retroactive way: -2-