Michigan v. Mark David Woolley

I. The Fifth Amendment protects citizens against compulsory self-incrimination in criminal cases. Miranda creates an irrebuttable presumption—which is simply a rule of law—that any statement given after a defective Miranda warning or the unequivocal assertion of a Miranda “right” is involuntary when that is demonstrably untrue; indeed, currently a voluntary though Mirandadefective statement is admissible for impeachment purposes. The question presented is: Because the Fifth Amendment concerns voluntariness, whether Miranda should at the least be modified to an adjudicatory device rather than a rule of law so that a failure of some sort with regard to Miranda creates a rebuttable presumption of involuntariness, allowing admission of the statement if it is demonstrated to be voluntary; that is, not taken in violation of the actual Fifth Amendment. II. Respondent while in custody and after Miranda warnings and agreeing to take a polygraph, asked a detective to call his wife and said, “I’d also like to contact my attorney, so he can arrange for whatever, kind of thing.” The detective asked “Do you want your attorney, then, before you take a polygraph?” and Respondent replied “I want to ask him, like, you know, look, I’m being