Sample data

What you get back

A finished live session on Miranda v. Arizona with six students. The names and the writing are invented. The layout is exactly what an instructor sees.

Run one with your class

On the projector at the end

67%

changed their mind

4 of 6 · 1 toward just, 3 toward unjust

Just · 4 · 67%before deliberationUnjust · 2 · 33%

Just · 2 · 33%afterUnjust · 4 · 67%

First votes are taken before anyone has read an argument. Second votes are taken after the room has argued. The gap between the two bars is the finding.

Deliberation report

Where each student started, where they ended, and the reasoning in between. The answer to the other side is the part that cannot be written without having read it.

6/6

submitted

changed position

6 min

median writing

6/6

graded

Priya Natarajanjust → unjust7 min
I came in thinking the warning rule was a formality the Court invented. Reading the interrogation log changed that. Two hours with no lawyer and no idea he could stop is not a technicality, it is the whole case.
Answering the other side
Officers in 1966 were trying to solve violent crimes, not run due process clinics. A blanket rule lets guilty people walk on paperwork.
The blanket rule is the point. Case by case means the person with the least power in the room has to argue their own rights to the people holding them. A warning costs the state thirty seconds.
9/10
Marcus Bellheld unjust5 min
Held my position. A confession signed on a form that falsely says he was advised of his rights is not evidence of anything except what the police wanted written down.
Answering the other side
Miranda confessed voluntarily and his account matched the victim. Nobody disputes he did it.
Whether he did it is not what the Court was asked. The question is what the state may use to prove it. If the answer is anything it can get a signature on, the trial is decoration.
8/10
Hannah Kowalskiheld just6 min
The dissent is right that the Court wrote a rule the Constitution does not contain. I do not think the interrogation was coerced in any ordinary sense, and I think the fix should have come from the legislature.
Answering the other side
The state has every incentive to skip the warning when nobody is watching. Without exclusion there is no enforcement.
That is an argument for civil remedies and discipline, not for throwing out true confessions. Exclusion punishes the public for the officer.
7/10

Three of six shown. The real report exports to CSV and prints to PDF, and the rubric is yours to change.

Run one with your class How it works