The Miranda warning was made famous by television detectives reading the bad guys their rights and then asking whether they understood them. After a U.S. Supreme Court decision this week, that follow-up question won't be necessary. David Kairys, a constitutional law professor at Temple's Beasley School of Law, said he feared the ruling could encourage detectives eager for a confession to ignore suspects' rights. "We had this history, and we still do, of relying on confessions more than traditional proof," he said. "This will embolden whatever tendencies there already are for wrongdoing or laziness." By putting more of a burden on suspects, the ruling also "makes it harder for the defendant who is improperly questioned and coerced to prove it," he said.