Final answer:
The Supreme Court's landmark decision in Miranda v. Arizona established that suspects must be informed of their rights, a practice known as issuing the Miranda Warning. This holds up the principles of the right against self-incrimination and the right to counsel. The Court typically follows stare decisis but can revisit past decisions; however, the Miranda Warning was not overturned in 2000.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that in 2000, the Supreme Court ignored stare decisis by overturning its own Miranda rule is not accurate. The Miranda v. Arizona case was a landmark decision in 1966 where the Supreme Court ruled that suspects must be informed of their rights before being questioned by the police. This ruling established the practice of issuing the Miranda Warning, which informs suspects of their right to remain silent and their right to an attorney, amongst other protections. The Court's decision was based on the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of the right to counsel.
After the Supreme Court decision, Ernesto Miranda was retried without his confession as evidence. He was again found guilty based on witness testimony and other evidence. Thus, the Miranda Warning continues to be a crucial aspect of law enforcement procedure, ensuring suspects are aware of their constitutional rights during custodial interrogation.
It is also important to note that the Supreme Court typically follows the principle of stare decisis which respects the precedent set by previous decisions. However, there have been instances where the Supreme Court has revisited and even overruled past rulings, but this was not the case with the Miranda Warning after the year 2000.