About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

53 Stetson L. Rev. i (2023-2024)

handle is hein.journals/stet53 and id is 1 raw text is: 




STETSON LAW REVIEW


VOLUME 53                              FALL  2023                             NUMBER   1


Open Issue


ARTICLES

Vega v. Tekoh: A Missed Opportunity to Protect
Miranda                                                           H. Mitchell Caldwell,
                                                                        Gautam  Sood
                                                                   & Marcel F. Sincich    1

       In Vega v. Tekoh, following a violation of Tekoh's Miranda rights, Tekoh brought a 42
       U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights claim against the offending officer and the officer's
       department, citing a Fifth Amendment violation. The Supreme  Court denied the
       claim and held that the Miranda rules do not implicate the Fifth Amendment, but
       rather are prophylactic. The Court proclaimed a Miranda violation cannot, alone, be
       a basis for a § 1983 claim. Since the 1966 Miranda decision, the Court has not
       provided  any meaningful  deterrence  of Miranda   violations, but rather has
       denigrated Miranda's protections. Vega was  a missed opportunity  to reinforce
       Miranda and bring Miranda's rules within the ambit of the Fifth Amendment. This
       Article critically examines the Court's Vega decision, from its disregard of its own
       precedent to its disingenuous analysis of the cost-benefit of reinforcing Miranda's
       rules.

Is Originalism a Fandom?                                           Benjamin J. Priester  29

       Originalism is more influential than ever in the federal judiciary and legal academia in
       2023, yet it presents as many puzzles as ever, too. What significance should we
       attribute to Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson's relatively favorable remarks about
       originalism? Should the U.S. Supreme  Court's decision in Dobbs  be viewed  as
       originalist? Why would some scholars desiring to defend progressive and inclusive
       case law seek  to recharacterize evolving contemporary norms   as a product of
       historically grounded originalism? How should we conceive of originalism when self-
       described originalist scholars maintain that their version of theoretical originalism
       should be dissociated from the methods or analyses put forward in practice by self-
       identified originalist judges? From an interdisciplinary perspective provided by
       scholarly work in the academic field of fan studies, dynamics like these are not so
       puzzling after all.
       For at least the past half-century, originalism has played a prominent role in U.S.
       constitutional theory. For a quite similar length of time, Star Wars has been a popular
       culture phenomenon  in the United States. Both involve highly contestable issues of
       interpretation of an iconic text, including the scope and solidity of its initial meanings
       and the evolution of the text itself over time. Both involve publicly prominent
       historical narratives that place disproportionate emphasis on certain individuals and
       influences, nostalgia for an inauthentic past in service of present objectives, and an
       undercurrent of backlash against changes that bring more inclusion and pluralism.
       Both demonstrate, in their own ways, the inevitability of interpretive disagreement
       and the impossibility of divining a singular objectively provable meaning when the
       text at issue not only contains numerous generalities and indeterminacies, but also
       carries a profound emotional, cultural, and personal significance to its interpreters
       and  the  broader  community in    which   their interpretive analysis  occurs.
       Consequently, while it may be more intuitive to associate a global media franchise
       like Star Wars with analysis of fandom, the dynamics present in originalism have
       many significant parallels. When viewed through the lens of this comparison, we can
       ask the question: is originalism a fandom?


i

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most