English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

When Chief Justice Burger announced the decision in Harris v. New York2-holding that statements elicited in violation of Miranda v. Arizona3 may be used to impeach-he reportedly characterized it as a matter "of interest mostly to members of the bar" and not worth describing from the bench.4 On the surface, his opinion for the Courtjoined by Justices Blackmun, Harlan, Stewart and White5-does indeed give an impression of little general interest or importance. It is very short-just eleven paragraphs-and is written in the flat, descriptive style typical of simple and uncontroversial cases. The initial six paragraphs set out the facts; the seventh argues that Miranda cannot be regarded as controlling; and the remainder of the opinion consists of four arguments-really assertions-in support of the Court's result. There is no indication that important considerations of policy have been weighed or that significant practical results may flow from the decision. Rarely, however, has so short an opinion concealed so much.

Harris v. New York: Some Anxious Observations on the Candor and Logic of the Emerging Nixon Majority