Tracking the Circularity of Confession Jurisprudence after Massiah & Miranda: Can a Superficial Application of Property Law Make Sense Out of Nonsense?

Abstract

After Miranda v. Arizona and Massiah v. United States, there were arguably three doctrinally separate methodologies for determining the admissibility of confessions in criminal proceedings. The interaction of three doctrines has generated a complex, contradictory, somewhat inexplicable, and chaotic jurisprudence. This article re-examines the post-Miranda interaction of the three doctrines, and argues that basic property law provides a conceptual framework for reconciling what appears to be an otherwise arbitrary and unpalatable collection of United States Supreme Court decisions.

Keywords: confession jurisprudence, miranda, arizona, massiah, property law, admissibility