I'm confident that the Supreme Court will agree that this is a constitutional law. It seems that we keep coming back to the question of voluntary versus coerced confessions. Well, ultimately it's the courts that decide. So what you have pre-Miranda, is you have litigation in case after case after case, where courts were required to look at whole range of factors to decide whether or not the confession was voluntary. You had more litigation, you had less certainty, you had more confusion, not only on the part of the police, but on the part of judges and criminal defendants.
Nobody's against the use of uncoerced, voluntary confessions.
Miranda is designed to ensure that the confessions that get into trial are in fact voluntary and uncoerced. Mr. Cassell, if you make your case before the Supreme Court, you argue that people will still continue to give the Miranda warning. If you don't make your case against the Supreme Court, the chance is that the Supreme Court will uphold the law as it currently stands. He said that no one would argue against that. For too long, we've diverted our attention.