Senior Fellow at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School David Rudovsky recently spoke with KYW News Radio about the Supreme Court decision in Vega v. Tekoh, which held that a violation of the Miranda rules does not provide a basis for a §1983 claim.
Rudovsky is one of the nation’s leading civil rights and criminal defense attorneys. He became a Senior Fellow at Penn Carey Law in 1988 and teaches courses in Criminal Law, Constitutional Criminal Procedure, and Evidence. His awards include a MacArthur Foundation Fellowship and Award for Accomplishments in Civil Rights Law and Criminal Justice, the ACLU Civil Liberties Award, and most recently, his fifth Harvey Levin Award for Excellence in Teaching at the Law School. He also won a University of Pennsylvania Lindback Award for Teaching Excellence in 1996.
From KYW News Radio:
There was a lot to take in as a result of this most recent Supreme Court term, so you would be forgiven if, while processing the overturning of Roe v. Wade and some of the other headline making decisions that were rendered, you may have missed a case involving Miranda rights. What did the court decide in Vega v. Tekoh, and why is it important? We asked David Rudovsky, Senior Fellow at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School and a civil rights attorney with the firm of Kairys, Rudovsky, Messing, Feinberg & Lin, LLP.