Nathan E. Ross


This Comment addresses the supervisory power generally, and it specifically focuses on how the existence of the Court’s supervisory power jurisprudence created a conundrum for the Rehnquist Court’s attempt to preserve the Miranda warnings. Part II traces the history and development of the supervisory power as an independent basis for decision and the alleged sources of this power. Part III analyzes the Court’s decision in Dickerson v. United States, including Justice Scalia’s dissent, within the context of Miranda and Section 3501. Finally, Part IV discusses why the Court chose to constitutionalize the Miranda warnings, instead of invoking it supervisory power, to maintain Miranda as the proper standard governing the admissibility of custodial confessions.

Included in

Law Commons



To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.