Last night, I encountered this rather descriptive and entertaining paragraph in Justice Scalia’s dissent in Minnick v. Mississippi, 498 U.S. 146 (1990):
Today’s extension of the Edwards prohibition is the latest stage of prophylaxis built upon prophylaxis, producing a veritable fairyland castle of imagined constitutional restriction upon law enforcement. This newest tower, according to the Court, is needed to avoid “inconsisten[cy] with [the] purpose” of Edwards‘ prophylactic rule, ante, at 8, which was needed to protect Miranda‘s prophylactic right to have counsel present, which was needed to protect the right against compelled self-incrimination found (at last!) in the Constitution.
No related posts.
Only Scalia would feel compelled to use a capital case where the petitioner’s illegally obtained confession was the basis for a death sentence as the foundation for the comedy pyramid. Too bad he wasn’t at Nuremburg. Would have been a laugh riot.
I love Scalia so much.
Christopher,
I may regret even asking this, but how can you find any enjoyment in someone who would give smart ass dicta when the finding determines the fate of a man’s life?
Fun Fact: the first case that established that you can’t beat a confession out of a prisoner, Brown v. Mississippi (279 U.S. 278)