Petitioner, versus arizona. We are argument, number 18, row versus wade. Quite often, in our most famous decisions are once that the court took unpopular. Lets go through a few cases that illustrate very dramatically and visually what it means to live in a society of 310 million different people who help stick together because they believe in the rule of law. Good evening and welcome to cspan and the National Constitution centers landmark cases series. Tonight, case number 11 out of 12. And this is the 1966 case miranda v. Arizona that helped revolutionize producing during the night. Its your under arrest, you have the right to remain silent, anything you say can be used against you do you know your miranda . Writes yes. Lets hear them. You have a lot of stuff to do. Are you sure you understand your rights . Oh, yes. He explained them to me. Just like they do on television. Ive done nothing wrong. If the right to remain silent. I bought them. Talk to my lawyer. You have the right to an attorney. Anything you say can be used against you you have the right to remain silent. You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney as you can see, miranda writes became part of our national culture. We will learn the story of them tonight from our two guests. Lets introduce you to them. Geoffrey rosen returns to the table, president and ceo of the National Constitution center and, for your regular viewers, they are partners in the series. He is a Supreme Court expert, author of numerous books, including the personalities and rivalries that define america. Thanks for being. Back great to be back. Paul cassel its with us for the first time. Former federal judge to the district of utah 4000 or two to 2007, also served as Deputy Attorney general from the criminal law professor at the utah law school. Thanks. Thanks for having me. What are the constitutional issues in the miranda . Case miranda settles, or tries to settle a question around the country for several hundred years, the question is how much pressure can Police Officers put on a suspect when they are trying to get information from that suspect, and what sort of rules regulate whether confessions can be used in court. As we talk about in the series, so many of the amendments concerning criminal rights, the rights of prosecution. What is it about this case that made it a landmark . After opening clip shows, it transformed the culture. Look at all the tv. Shows i was trying to see if i could do it by hard, you have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law. We have a right to exert what they can tony, if you cant afford one, one will be appointed for. You that is so simple how did i do . That was good. Its a symbol to the culture that when he reaffirmed miranda, the case came to be accepted by the culture. How many cases can we see about that . Before we get into the story, about a general discussion about 19 forties, fifties and early 60s policing in this country. We are currently in a big debate about policing tactics and one involved in the sixties. Why is that . I think what happened in the country is we saw already significant improvement in Police Policing in this country. In the 1930s, the thirddegree it was a fairly widespread tactic. But then as you move forward in the forties and fifties and in the sixties, i think those tactics have started to essentially disappear, and then the question is if pressure is not going to be used in the form of physical threats to get confections, Police Officers will use psychological tactics, psychological techniques to get confessions. What kind of regulations should there be on those techniques . That was the issue that miranda had to wrestle with. So, jeff rosen when you look at the country at that period of time, whether any regional aspects of this . Where their cases after jim crow were blacked in the south may have had more prosecution . Theres a huge debate on Police Brutality focused on the south. So as paul said in the 1930s, the court had a brand standard. They had to use the thirddegree and beat confessions out of people. Its 1961 and the Civil Rights Commission issues a report finding widespread Police Brutality in the south, so there still a debate about how much that is going on. In the face of, this is a criminal procedure revolutionary court. The warren court issues the map decision a 1961, basically applying exclusionary rule to the states. 1963, it says you have to have a lawyer present during Police Interrogation, and the gideon case says that you have to have a Court Appointed lawyer. So, basically, the Supreme Court, led by earl warren, its using the constitution, the fourth and fifth amendment, to address what it perceives to be a real problem of Police Brutality in the south. And that is the background against which this case is decided. So we will spend more time on the war in court. Its makeup and why they took this case on. But lets tell Ernesto Miranda story. Who is he . I think, also, you have to look not just at miranda but also at his victim. We can talk a little bit about her shortly. But miranda was a repeat criminal. Someone who had been arrested, convicted and sentenced a number of times. Its fair to say, he was a drifter who did not have any established employment or place to work and then on the night in question, the knife point adopted a young woman and raped her. Thats the backdrop. Theres also the warren court revolution. I mean, think of the other things that are going on simultaneously with miranda committing this Violent Crime as Violent Crime is skyrocketing in america in the 1960s. And whether it is the war in court, or Something Else or a little bit of both that is responsible for. That the womans name was patricia, 18 years old leaving work at the paramount Movie Theater in phoenix, arizona. On the way home, she was kidnapped, raped, wrapped and then driven back to her house. So we have a series of accusations and very serious crimes. How did this proceed from here . The following week theres another robbery and some witnesses see a car that seems to belong to miranda at a bus stop. The police check out the car, they go to miranda the place where he is living. They talk to his girlfriend. And she essentially fingers him. Hes accused, taken to the station. Theres a dispute whether hes actually told his rights. Some states did, it others today. The fbi did read rights, but, essentially, he signed a confession saying i did it. And he is convicted. And then he claims that he was never read his rights, and thats when the case began. So we visited the Phoenix Police department and what makes this very interesting is that the detective who arrested Ernesto Miranda is still very much with us, still with the Phoenix Police department and you gave us a tour because this is very much a part of the Police Department and National History and they have a display there. He tells us the story from the Police Departments point of view. Lets watch. When she first looked at the lineup, she said it looks like the number one guy. The number one guy was ernie miranda. And i asked her, are you sure . And she said, well, it looks like him. But maybe if i heard his voice i might be able to make a positive. I did not say anything, we went back into the room, i waited for a while. I was not quite sure what he was going to say. And bernie asked me, how did i do . And i said, well you did not do so good, ernie. He said, well i guess i better tell you about it then. I said that to be a good idea. And he did. He told us about the kidnapping, rape and robbery. After you told us i said, would you sign a written conviction . Which says at the beginning of the report, i give this statement voluntarily without coercion, threats or promises of immunity, knowing my legal rights. He wrote the statement all on one short page. The writing was excellent and dispelling was excellent and the description of the act was accurate. This is the entrance into the old city jail on the fifth floor of the old city county courthouse. Miranda would have been brought in here and we would have been processed, just like every other prisoner. He would have been searched and then he would have been transported, shown his new quarters, which were over here. We have for identical tanks. This particular tank wouldve been miranda was kept, and it wouldve been the felony tank. He wouldve been booked into here, he wouldve spent a week, maybe only a couple of days. That is retired directive carole coolly from the Phoenix Police department. You teach procedure, so we saw the sign convection, what is it let him to be interested in this . Its almost a preface task case and instead the police came in and said he has identified you as the one who raped her, tell us what happened. It presents the issue of psychological pressure meant that they can factional should not be used. Miranda ends up radically changing the rules. In 1963, when this interrogation took place, there was not a single precedent in america that would support throwing that kind of a confession out. For 170 years, those kind of statements had been routinely admitted to court. I think that is when chief Justice Warren and others voted to get interested in the issue. Miranda had two trials, one the robbery trial of barbara, the other was the rape trial of british and june 1963. What happened to . Them well, he was challenged on sixth amendment grounds because the court had said that you have a right to council during interrogation. Well , first up, he was convicted about those, right . He was convicted and sentenced to 20 to 25 years on the robbery and the kidnapping, rape and was scheduled to serve them all concurrently in june of 63. So then we go to the challenge. We go to the challenge. The Appellate Court, the arizona Supreme Court, the constitutional issue, the sixth amendment and the Court Rejects the claim that the confession was improperly put an evidence. The detectives testified they informed him of his legal rights, and the only questions whether they was a voluntary violation of the six commitment. It does not violate the Constitutional Rights of the defendant. So the sixth amendment says what . The sixth amendment says that you have the right to effective assistance of counsel, and the argument that mirandas lawyers are making our, look, when hes talking to detective coolly we just saw, he did not have a lawyer than. He shouldve had a lawyer at that point. The problem with that argument is that for 170 years in American History, the rule has always been that you get a lawyer once you go to court. Once charges have formally been filed. So historically, the system was not in play in either with the fifth amendment. The film says you have the right now to be compelled to be a witness against you. Witnessing has always occurred in. Court the president existed, this is not a problem at all. To use the confession of our next to miranda, and that is why the lawyers are looking for creative theories to try to prevent the Supreme Court. For the non lawyers in our audience, we try to explain that the process works. So, he did not have his appeal upheld in the arizona Supreme Court. How does it make its way from there to the federal Supreme Court . You have to file a petition for what is called sheer sorority, they have to agree to take the case. In a dramatic case called the gideon case, the more lies by the book gideon trump, it with everyone should read. Getting in and wrote a petition saying that i was wrongly convicted because i dont have a lawyer for my defense in the court overturning the previous rules said that you are entitled to court when the title. They brought in a lawyer called don frank who was a yellow law professor. So very distinguished constitutional scholar, and john frank decided to bring in local council, i call that john flynn. I think he argued very well. Once you get the big guns like that, the Supreme Court gets interested. A note about john frank, he ended up not arguing the case. He popped up later in the National Scene because he served as counsel for anita hill, at the Clarence Thomas hearings. Miranda goes from someone whos in the bowels of the Interrogation Room in Maricopa County to someone who is now one of the most high powered legal teams imaginable on the Supreme Court. Heres a comment from war beau, he writes miranda was a rapist, kidnappers, armed robber, landmark cases, its the difference of bad people that upholds liberty for us all. The question is what kind of liberty should we uphold. For 170 years there was a rule that the statement of the type that miranda was making would not be admissible to court. In fact, if you go around the world today, its very hard to find a country that would exclude the kind of statement that miranda gave. So there is no debate that its protective of all persons, even those accused of crimes. The problem with miranda is, frankly, this goes so far. The pendulum souls so far in the protecting suspect interests that people like patricia, the woman that were raped were given short shrift in this. I should go in the decision so far, chief warned disagrees and he says that at the time the fbi was routinely giving warnings like this. And then he quotes the expense of other countries and says that england since the turn of the century had been giving similar warnings. So we are going to have a good discussion about how rooted was in the fifth and sixth amendment. We have to talk about a history of the fifth amendment to, lets not clear that warren was making this about of thinner. Certainly, with respect to what warnings, the fbi was giving warnings. The problem with miranda is not reading a few words off of the, cardio the right to remain silent, that is what you see on the tv programs. The problem with miranda is what i would call the exclusionary rule aspects of it. It sets up rules that say you cannot question certain people, and you cannot if you do certain things, certain things cannot be used. Its the procedural apparatus that is associated miranda that makes it tens of thousands of criminal cases go unsolved because of his procedural requirements. Lets go back to that. When we talk about the consequences of this, and other decisions of the war in court. Lets talk about the warren court, the last case we did was 1962. There are a couple of new justices who have been appointed to the court since then. Abe fortas, but iran right was a candy importing. How does a dynamic change with these new additions . Well abe fortas had been appointed by the war court to represent gideon. So he is acutely interested in criminal procedures. He has an lbj supporter, he got in trouble when lbj nominated him to be chief justice for both advising lbj on the side. Hes very committed to the warren court revolutionary. He was kennedys only appointee, very deferential to congress. Very pro Law Enforcement and is in dissent in miranda. So there was a balance on both sides, but essentially the most frightening thing about the war in court, look at all the former judges and politicians on the court. You black, former police court judge in alabama. He saw all of it firsthand theres another great biography, so many great biographies that our viewers have to see. But the great biography of hugo black, who describes how as a lawyer, he is trying a hispanic defendant and he brings the defendant up and closes the stage the defendant looks menacing and does not say anything, he just as i want the jury to take a look at that man. Later, he regrets that kind of behavior, and as a police court judge, he thought that he saw how the system can be really abused to the third degree. Tom clark, a former politician as well, just all of these guys most important, we need to talk about earl warren, the District Attorney about me to county. He actually prosecuted these people, hes acutely sensitive in a previous case called spawn, which we can talk about, about how the defendants can be persecuted for things beyond their control. They are practical constitution s and know how the system works. I want to talk about or warrens biography, because foreign mentioned that he was also the attorney general in the state of california and served three terms as governor. Theres an interesting biographical note. His own father was murdered in a robbery. Put that into context about the views he brings to the court. I think jeff hit it on the head. There were a large number of politicians on the Supreme Court at this period of time. Frankly, i think in my view, and in lots of others, they have not successfully made that transition from politicians who get to have their own views, impose their own views, impose those views pass legislation. And theyve now shifted into a judicial role, where their duty is simply to interpret the law not to make the law. So when they see a problem like Police Interrogation, politicians can pass laws, to pass regulations, do different things. And i think at least five justices on the court were ready to do the same thing through Supreme Court. Thats one of the legacies of the war in, court the decisionmaking approach, not to look at the narrow facts of the case, but simply throw out some kinds of rules that they think everyone in the country ought to follow. You used to express into the thirddegree, what is that . The third degree has to do with beating, and you take it one degree or two, and then one more. But, really, in the context of this case, the thirddegree means a kind of coercive pressure that is not involve physical violence, and theres a history here that is very fascinating. Listen to sort, because the court tells it in the miranda decision. It has to do with the history of the fifth amendment, every amendment has a story. And this is the story of john wilbur and the puritan center. So, during the british star chamber, if you were a heretic you could be summoned before the star chamber and forced to take an oath, which means you promised to answer truthfully any question. If you rightofcenter and you ask if you are a protestant, you are in a bad position. You can lie and go to eternal damnation, you can tell the truth and be burned as a heretic or you can refuse to answer, or be imprisoned for contempt. So wilbur is called before the star chamber, he says you have to answer. And he says im angling it, but no man is bound to accuse himself. And that principle that is a form of the third degree. If you are called before a body and required to ask questions that put you in a situation that no person who has Human Dignity should be forced to answers with the court is trying to channel when it translates, the beatings at the 19 thirties which were formidable under the old voluntary nurse, and everyone agrees that if you are under beating, its not permissible. Now theyre trying to take this puritan history, now the we know that psychological pressure can be used, how can we honor the fifth amendment today . We have a video of chief Justice Earl Warren talking about the thirddegree. So lets watch it. The thirddegree, for instance, was a common thing 50 years ago. And the enforcement of the law, one had to watch for it very carefully to see that it was not committed. I think comparatively to Law Enforcement officers now, they are addicted to the third degree. And it is because the courts have had it hard. That kind of conduct and said that if that kind of conduct is indulged in by the police force, a man is not given a fair trial. Therefore, his conviction cannot stand. Certainly, that is in the interest not of the particular defends, but in the interest of everyone. Paul cassel, what do you want to say about . This when you talk about the thirddegree, the chief Justice Warren hit the nail on the head when he said, even back when he was speaking, comparatively, few cases involved the thirddegree. Of course, most tactics have long been outlawed, so what you are seeing when people talk about the miranda decision is something of a bait and switch. The point is made that, well, people have been tortured to get confessions, now we need the miranda rules. The miranda rules are not designed to address those sort of things. It had long been abolished by the Supreme Court, and the real question that we should be talking about, and i think the Supreme Court should be talking about more directly and miranda addresses the psychological tactics at Police Officers used. Heres a question from joe on twitter who writes, since the fbi had such a rule in place at the time, were loads of federal crimes unsolved . The fbi had nothing like the miranda rules. But the fbi had something that you have the right to remain silent, anything you say can be used against two. And will get your lawyer when you go to court. Miranda, frankly, garbles what the fbi was doing. Who says we are going to impose in the country the same thing. It miranda had imposed on the country the same rules of the fbi, i dont think any of us would be here talking about miranda. It will be the most controversial criminal procedure decision in the history of the United States. But but she fastest warren did was take some rules requiring warnings to be provided, and then created this vast exclusionary rule apparatus that throws out all kinds of confessions and imposes all kinds of prohibitions on even asking reasonable questions of suspects in custody. Comments . Okay, well talk about whether its effects were later, but cops came to feel that it was far less than both sides have as far. They said he wanted a blanket rule, you have to have a station officer there. The cops one of the opposite, no warnings, no lawyers. They came up with a radical solution, but a moderate one, saying that you have to give a warning, and once you are warned, its presume that the statement is voluntary unless you say i want a lawyer. The most valuable thing i can do, and i can share this incredibly sophisticated vibes with cspan viewers, if you are ever and targeted by police, say the magic words i want a lawyer, because then it has to stop. And you are just hugely in power. If you say those words. That was the big innovation of miranda, and well talk more about how many confessions that led to. Many people say did not increase that many confessions, but warren is doing two things, he saying you have to read the directions, and if you say i want a lawyer, the interrogation stops. Third, in order to waive these, writes it has to be knowing, voluntary and intelligent, thats the warning on the crops to prove that. With the background you gave us about the chief justice. He was looking for a way to address what he saw the wrongs in the system, and told his court to begin to look for cases that might fit the bill. So when the cases came before the criminals before miranda, talk about the other three please. Cases designed to present the courts with the full picture of Police Interrogation, one was the case weve been talking, about miranda versus arizona, the rapist out of arizona, and then there was west over versus United States. Interesting thing there, thats a federal case, and its a letters or general of the United States argues in front of Thurgood Marshall who is elevated to the Supreme Court. Theyre gonna marshal is arguing against the miranda rules and against the restraints on Police Interrogation because, of, course they would affect not only state Law Enforcement agencies, but as weve been talking about, fbi and other federal Law Enforcement agencies would have to comply with the rules as well. When four cases go before the court, how does the process work . There were a lot of arguments that take place over time, and a lot of phenomenal lawyers who are arguing. In addition to Thurgood Marshall, there was a distinguish lawyer, a great Fourth Amendment scholar, he had been a lawyer and nuremburg and hes arguing for the state of new york and resisting a broad imposition of a fifth and sixth amendment in all cases. Hes concerned that the rule will not be retroactive in for a lot of people already convicted. So you do have, interestingly, to civil libertarian heroes. Theyre gonna marshal and also tell for taylor, who were arguing about and government. This came to the court february 28th through march 2nd, ten lawyers involved with these four cases. Lasting more than seven hours, spread out over those three days. We dont see this kind of structures very often now. This seems like really complicated because of the number of cases and lawyers. How does the court approach . That the court is trying to put in front of the argument the full array of different issues that come up and Police Interrogation. And i think one of the things that is striking about miranda, when you look at it in retrospect is how much it departed from the ordinary approach of judging and to the judicial process in this country. Typically, you take one of the facts of the case and you reach a narrow rule to address those facts. Again, in keeping with the idea that many of the justices were politicians, trying to announce some broad and sweeping rules, they set up the case so that it would be designed almost to allow judicial legislation, regulation, whatever you want to call it to come out of the decision of the issue. Miranda, of those four cases, had at one hour and 35 minutes of argument in front of the court. As we heard from jeffrey rosen, john flynn and john frank where the two lawyers with john flynn making the argument before the court for miranda. Arizona assistant attorney general gary nelson who made the argument, and dwayne, who is the national District Attorney association. Anything noteworthy about the argument . One of the things that is tried struck getting is that we mention what a strong legal team miranda had. His team is arguing the sixth amendment, saying he did not get a lawyer during Police Questioning and, in fact, the brief does not even argue that the fifth amendment was somehow violated. The reason being was at the fifth amendment has always been a limited to the court room that you cannot be a witness against yourself. The fifth amendment was not something that was even the focus of the oral argument, or even the briefing and that we will talk in a moment about the decision comes out, but there is a complete disconnect between the arguments being advanced and the decision that ultimately come forward. Let me do calls, then lets come back to you. We welcome your persons to patient in this conversation tonight. And the lines for dialing in our divided geographically. Eastern and central time zones . 2027488900. If you live in the mountain or pacific time zones . 2027488901. Please tell it carefully. You can also send us a tweet, please use the hashtag landmark cases if you do so you can get into my twitter stream here. Finally, cnns Facebook Page has a conversation underway, if you like to make a comment there, three different ways to be involved. By phone, by tweet and by facebook, so please join the conversation. We welcome your comments jeff rosen . A brief response. Flynn actually did mention the fifth amendment. He says to justice stewart, if a man knew his rights, hes rich enough, hes educated enough to assert his fifth amendment right, he recognizes he has a fifth amendment right to request council. He does say that the fifth amendment is key to overcoming coercion. He gives a speech the next year, and says when we talk about the effective counsel, you should know what i did. I argued, essentially, he did mention at one point in the decision, but he said i briefed an argument case entirely on a sixth amendment proposition, and now the Court Decides another way. So frank himself and flynn end up saying, well, we were committing ineffective assistance of counsel because were arguing one thing. Here was the questions before the court in the case. Is a confession admissible in a court of law if it was obtained without warnings against self incrimination and without Legal Counsel . To, who determines whether a defendant has legally waived his or her rights . Third question. What is the standard for judging whether voluntary confessions are admissible . And, fourth, when should an attorney be appointed for a person of here she cannot afford one . These are the questions that are at stake before the four cases, in particular, miranda. Thats the case we talk about. We are in the era where the Supreme Court has begun recording audio of their oral arguments. Next, you will hear a little bit about the two a pony opposing attorneys, john flynn and gary nelson. Lets listen to some of the cases they made, and then lets talk about it with you guys. The only person that can adequately advise a person like earnest miranda is a lawyer. What was the lawyer advice . He had the right now to incriminate himself. He had a right not to make any statement, that he had the right to be free from further questioning by the Police Department, that he had the right at any moment in time to be represented by counsel in the court, if you were to employ council, the state would furnish him council. I certainly agree with mr. Justice black 100 . The fifth amendment, the sixth amendment in every part of our constitution is applied to everyone, for, rich, ignorant, intellectual, what have you. There is no possible basis for differentiation. I dont argue that. No prosecutor argues that. But miranda, i think characteristically is portrayed in this light in an attempt to make something that is not there. Jeff rosen, what did you hear . He is not arguing that confession is compelled. He is not claiming that, and we are not talking about the third degree. Squarely, both lawyers are struggling to use both the sixth amendment, which the court says applies during interrogation, and also the fifth. There coming up with a standard that is the totality of the circumstances test in a case called spanning from 1969. We have a look at the characteristics, and was he an educated, if hes thinking glitch well, did he fully understand his rights . It was a very mushy openended test. That is why the lawyers there and in other parts of the oral argument were stressing miranda only had an eighth grade education. He wasnt well educated, he did not understand his rights. At the same time, in the years since spa no, the justices and society had come to believe that this was just too unpredictable to actually be able to overcome the coercive pressures of the station house. That is why you hear the lawyers saying the fifth and sixth amendments appear to everyone regardless of their station. Its not appropriate to make this case by case determinations. Theyre asking the court to come with a rule that will protect all defendants. Paul cassel, what did you hear . I heard two arguments, as jeff talked about. The doctrine argument, while the statement was not involuntary in the traditional sense, there was a lot of pressure. The problem is that argument is that for 170 years in American History these kind of statements had routinely been admitted. So the Supreme Court is grappling with the idea that, we want to throw out everything that has gone out before and announce a new rule . The other thing i hear here is a pragmatic. Concern if you take the arguments that are being made seriously, particularly the amendment argument that weve been talking about, and saying that he should have a lawyer, what a lawyer is going to say, we are not going to answer any questions right now. And say nothing at all. Nothing whatsoever. If you go that route, what you end up with is no Police Interrogation in america. Before we find out what the courts say, and how we got, their lives listen to some of our callers. First, josh and iowa. Hi josh, youre on the air. Hi. My question, from what i know it seems like chief Justice Warren having District Attorney wanted to expand the rights, why was he so invested in expanding the rights given in that case . I like to hear both of you talk about that please. You can start, paul cassel. Its one of the things going on in the 1960s is the notion that criminals are the product of their environment, that they are not accountable for their decisions, they have gotten a High Education like we heard with miranda. Against that backdrop, there is a perverse interest in hearing the underdog that Police Officers have outwitted to suspect when they come up with something that gets them to confess. So that is a strange backdrop to the decision. I wonder what jeff thinks about this. The notion of chief Justice Warren as soft on criminals guy just isnt convincing. This chief justice wrote terry versus ohio, one of the most prolonged enforcement decisions ever written, which says that the cops are allowed to stop you and pat you down on reasonable suspicion without a warrant. But he did care about Human Dignity, he uses that phrase in the decision. He was troubled when he wrote the spinal case, that the guy involved any brawl there ended up killing someone may have been acting in selfdefense, and yet according to the state rules at the time was leveled for a big prison sentence. So he has a pragmatic judge did not think the totality of the circumstances test was protective enough at a time when he was really troubled by police violence. And as to thirddegree, as we head on the clip. He understood what was going on in the south. So far from being in aclu guy who wants to stop the cops, stop on terror geishas by requiring a lawyer at all times, he is trying to come up with a moderate compromise that would restrain the police at a time that he thinks is necessary. Brexit is up next, long beach california. Yes, my question is, i want to go back to before miranda rights were even brought into play, the question is, what were the fbis rights, and how would they present their rights to suspects before miranda . What the fbi said was that they instructed their special agents to tell people they had the right to remain silent in that anything they said could be used against him. Those are the kind of rights that were given to miranda him self. But with respect to whether they can have an attorney, the fbi would say, look, once you go to court that is when your sixth amendment rights apply. So the fbi had never done the sort of thing that was under discussion and we will talk about in a minute with the opinion, they never did anything that said, look, if someone says they dont want to talk, the fbi must stop asking questions. That is the, frankly, radical step that miranda takes. And the one that has been harmful for Law Enforcement from that day, even to today. Next, if you are name celeste in tulsa. Hello, you are on. , i attend middle school, and my question for your guests is, how long did it take for this case to reach the Supreme Court . Okay, celeste, before you go. Tell me about your interest in this case as a middle school student. Well, my social studies teacher brought this up. And he says that if we get on we get extra credit. Good for you for getting your extra credit. Thank you for participating tonight. Congratulations. Thats wonderful to get extra credit, and you can also tell your teacher that we know that the crime occurred in 1963 and the case came down in 1966. So took three years between the crime and the decision. Is that a long time and Supreme Court contexts . No, i think it seems like goldilocks, just right. Next up, glen in michigan. Thank you very much everyone. My question is about does miranda apply to legal and illegal aliens . Specifically, im thinking about that case in san bernardino, where it blurs the look at the line between regular crime and terrorism. The lady, i guess, was a legal alien. And she had survived, they were looking at it as a terrorist case. We miranda have applied to her specifically . For example . Thanks for your question. Thats a great question. A let paul take it away, but the question of to what degree miranda applies to terrorism suspects abroad is an open question that the courts are deciding now they have not definitively decided whether suspects interrogated outside of the territorial United States for terrorism need their miranda rights. My understanding is that the interrogation of anyone within the United States they would have to be read their miranda rights. Yes, jeff is right on that. Thats one of the things that the miranda decision does, is extends rights to everyone inside the United States. You can have some interesting questions, what if an fbi agent is overseas, and how do the right come into play in that situation. You can also have some interesting questions that come up and what are called Public Safety situations nowadays. If there was a ticking time bomb that a terrorist is suggesting that in those narrow circumstances, miranda warnings may not need the Public Safety concern. Does it apply to foreign combatants on u. S. Oil . The answer is it depends . Are we talk about things in a military contest, or are we talking about things in a civilian Law Enforcement context, which miranda does. Apply jim is in california. Youre on. First of all, a comment. Im a retired attorney, and i began law school in autumn of 1966. My criminal law professor, fred at northwestern was known as friday the cup, he did not like miranda. He was adamant about how dangerous it was for police work. And i just brought that back. Judge, you are talking about the court having politicians on. I think one could say that the court now has too many judges on it and not enough. Perhaps, people from outside of the Appellate Court and Supreme Court cork circuit. I dont like the way its going in recent years. Anyway, thanks. He mentions fred, which is very interesting. He had written the Police Interrogation manual with different techniques and tactics and so forth, so i think one of the reasons that professor fred was disappointed and miranda said he discovers that all of his techniques and tactics had been quoted as a reason for the Supreme Court needing to step in and regulate Police Interrogation. The big irony of the Supreme Court decision is that does not restrict in if the psychological techniques that he used, so he reworked his textbook the next year and it became a bestseller because, after all, what better book to look at then the one sided by chief Justice Warren in the Supreme Courts decision. Two more questions, then lets come back to the decision. Dale is in springfield, virginia. You are on. Good evening. Id like to point out that the Supreme Court did not just rush to the exclusionary rule as the first attempt to curtail this activity by police. There has been a whole series of decisions leading up to it. Finally, the court decided to be convinced that the only way to get the police to, follow the rules that they were laying down was to remove the incentive for them to violate the law. If you do this, were not going to allow the evidence to be used. I think thats an important factor here thats being glossed over. Very important point. Absolutely, mirandas not coming out of nowhere. The map decision from 1961 arguably has as much or more practical importance than a miranda itself. Miranda can be seen as a pro police decision. Ironically, it did not prevent the use of trickery or deception and, in some cases, it inoculated the police. All you have to do is say the magic words and you can use the same interrogation annuals, and then we learn about their origin. Think of all the things that miranda did not do, it did not require the videoing of interrogations. It did not actually subside and really prevent deception or trickery for all those reasons. The court wants a broad line rule, but it was not uniform. We can hear the continuing debate all these years later, and it was a divided court. It ended up being a five four decision. The majority chief Justice Earl Warren, justice hugo black, william brennan, william douglas, and fortas. Des moines or us . We. Is there a back story for how they got to the five four decision . One thing that weve been talking about if the fbi practices, those who are pushing chief Justice Warren, for example, pushing for broad regulations of the police saying, look, the fbi is already administering this, we wouldnt have to extend those two other agencies. The problem was that the fbi did not do anything like the sorts of things that miranda was imposing on federal agencies, but every agency in the United States. From time to time in these cases, weve heard stories about justices finding coalitions to bring them to their side. Either any good stories in the miranda case that either of you know of that convince someone to go one way or the other in this one . Or where they lined up for the outset . I dont know. Do you . I know there was some debate about the fbi warnings included. I also know that theyve gone back now to look at some of the draft opinions that were written. One of the things that were added into this a season at the last minute was a decision that, while this is one way of regulating Police Interrogation, we leave it open to congress and the states, maybe they come up with some other ways of regulating Police Interrogation. So that compromised if you will, or verbally articulated was critical to building the coalition. I just want to say, since we talk about the fbi warnings, theyre quoted in the miranda decision. Heres what the fbi said at the time. If any person being interviewed after warning of council decides to consult with council to proceed for other, the interview was terminated. The fbi does not pass judgment on the ability a person to pay for council and gives the warning. The other thing, the best way to understand the miranda decision itself, go to the National Constitution center is phenomenal interactive constitution and you can see paul cassel and kate stiff. A beautiful common statement about what miranda means. Constitution center dot oregon, and i have to do the plug now because its so cool. You can read the fifth amendment on the side let me put under my camera right here. You can read the fifth amendment in all of its beauty, and you can see this common statement where professors paul cassel and stiff, talk about what everyone agrees, the text, the history, i think its so very inspiring that you have different inspectives are able to come up with this common statements and separate statements about what you disagree about. Thats a great place for viewers to begin to really understand the decision. We have it on screen. Chief justice chose to write opinion himself. It was 60 plus pages, and he read it aloud in the court to its entirety. How often does that happen . Certainly not with the 60 page opinion, you can imagine it would take several hours to do that. But i think everyone knew when it came down that it was a landmark decision and have reverberations that would echo for years and years. In fact, the miranda rules were written in the decisions, so the tax were absurd and were used so often in police and crime dramas. Heres a bit of chief justice earl warrants opinion. At the outset, if the person custody is to be subjected to interrogation, he must first be informed in clear and unequivocal terms that he is the right to remain silent. For those unaware of the privilege the, warning is needed to make them aware of it, the threshold requirement for a intelligent decision as to its exercise, the fifth movement privileges so fundamental to our system of constitutional rule, we will not pause to inquire and individual cases whether the defendant was aware of his rights without a warning being given. What are you hearing . There one thing that is strange about the decision is that there are 50 pages of text, and they only last pages that you get to the discussion of the case. Many commentators read the decision and it reads like a legislative report with unattached statute and, by the way, it handles a little bit of the cases. Theres a legislative feel to the decision that i think stands quite at odds with what most of the decisions coming out of the Supreme Court looks like today. Jeff rosen . Do you think it was fair to the spirit of the fifth and sixth amendment and not radical, but agree with that it does have a legislative quality. Warren says in the beginning, the beginning, and the middle end, these are the rules that we want to cops to read. The fact that they were taken from the fbi reports but had not been part of state criminal law on a broad scale led to fierce criticism that it was indeed legislative and set off a political firestorm. Before we get to the aftermath of it, we should tell the rest of Ernesto Miranda story. Because its really quite a colorful and sad one. What happened to him next . Hes just one this landmark case in the Supreme Court, so what happens legally . So, hes paroled in 1972. He is arrested again in 1974 for parole violations. He goes back to prison. After his release, he goes back to his old neighborhoods, hes actually sells the miranda cars for one or two dollars, autographing them, and thats how he makes his living in a poignant moment. Hes playing poker in a car, a fistfight, hes fatally staffed with a knife, killed. In his pocket are copies of the miranda warning. An arc of a life. He tried to appeal his conviction to the Supreme Court, and was not successful, right . Hes reconvicted because a confession he made to his wife of all people is admitted. His common law wife, and its turned down because she was really a common law wife. The rules of special privilege does not block the use of that confession. So the only way that miranda was can victims it was that he gave his confession to his wife. The Police Officer confession was thrown out, but not the other. An interesting quota to his tail, killed with the miranda cards in his pocket, and his killers when they arrested are at the miranda rules. We have carroll coolly, the officer you met early on who was the arresting officer in the case, adding more to the story. So lets listen. After the Supreme Court decision in 1966, the various departments around the state and the country develop their own miranda warning card based upon the decision, and the cards that we have here are the original cards that we had miranda sign as a souvenir after he got out of prison. And then we have the revised cards which are below it and that is the one in english, and the one in spanish on the back. The revised cards did not require a signature. Miranda, used to be from Police Officers, and he would say in this downtown area, and he would introduce himself as the famous Ernesto Miranda. And then he would ask officers if he had any spare cards. Then he would take those cards and sign them and he would tried to sell them for a dollar or two. There is the arresting officers story of the person who gave his name to them around the rights. Im gonna go back to calls and get some more comments and reactions and questions about this. Next up is john from tech or sister, pennsylvania. My understanding is you can only invoke a right to have a lawyer present when you are being interrogated. Can you please clarify at what point you are being interrogated and if that can happen only in a Police Station or if it can happen in other places . Thank you. My students were taking their criminal procedure exam this morning, and the miranda rules are triggered when someone is in custody, when theyve been taken into the Police Station, as miranda was. Typically, they dont apply when someone is being questioned in their home or on the street in the aftermath of the crime. The other parties interrogation. Police officers have to be asking questions or the functional equivalent of asking questions in order to bring the miranda rules into play. Next call is brad from california. I was the time detained for a dui stop, and the officer on duty gave me the field test. I passed it. I went to the breathalyzer. I passed that he want to take me into the Police Station for a blood test. Once there, i had my glasses taken away from me and i wasnt allowed to read the paper in front of him. Anyway, to make a long story short, he marks it, saying refused. It he kept asking me questions. I was not read my miranda writes until three hours later. At what point was he supposed to read me my miranda writes. The interesting thing is you dont have to be read your miranda rights to have a blood test, because the court has held that blood is not testimonial. It is merely physical evidence. We may remember from long ago that during the clinton impeachment investigation, we saw the president of the United States in the white house having his blood taken. He had no fifth amendment right to refuse that, because of the Courts Holding that that is not testimonial. The thing i remember most vividly from my criminal procedure class in law school was my teacher jumping up and down saying, blood blood blood and if there is nothing else you remember from this program, it may be those words because although it seems very dramatic that the police are allowed to extract blood for me without you consent, because you are not actually incriminating yourself with their own words according to the Supreme Court, you do not have the fifth amendment right or the miranda right. Next is lurid from philadelphia. You are on the air, laura. Hi. Id like to go back to something that professor i cassell said a while ago, and if i understand you correctly, it sounds like youre saying before 1960, three 1966, police giving the thirddegree to suspects is worse than it is now. Hasnt there been a lot of information coming out recently about forced confessions . My understanding is that the situation hasnt improved. Lets talk about false confessions. One of the things about the miranda decision is the over protection of some people and other protection of others. It over protects, i think, professional criminals, because what happens as they lawyer up and ask for an attorney, and no questions can be asked of those people. On the other hand, if you are innocent and you have not committed a crime, what is the first thing you do . You waive your rights and you want to talk. There have been documented cases of mentally retarded persons or others who have been convinced they committed a crime and talked into false confessions. Miranda does not do anything for innocent people. Something like videotaping, where we could look at the whole interrogation and forgot exactly what happened. That might be something for innocent people, but miranda has been, i think its fair to say, a complete disappointment for false confessions. I dont know if you could answer this hypothetical question from this journalist. What if miranda decision had been issued if tom do we earl warren ticket had when the election . Earl warren is not going to be chief justice, but on the other hand, we have a moderate republican president , do we, who still saw might have appointed a moderate republican like warren and his great achievement was as a statesman. We talked about how he was able to bring his colleagues together. Whether you think its legislative or an active statement ship, it was this practical politician from a Republican Party that at that time was not especially much together on crime then democrats were, who is able to come up with this ruling. As i think allowed, although there is no one like earl warren, you can imagine another moderate republican chief being appointed who might have come up with a similar decision. Steve from tennessee. I have two questions. One, is there a statute of limitations on when somebody can vow an appeal when they feel that theyre remeant miranda rights have been violated . I was involved in something when i was 19 years old, and i was pretty well forced into silent confession. Not physically, but mentally. I had tried several times to get court papers and everything else, and nobody will give them to me. Is there a way to do that . If so, how would i go about doing it . All right one of the things the Supreme Court has said is that since the miranda issues, the miranda issues have to be raised immediately at the time of the trial. You cannot raise them later on. It becomes too collateral to allow it on the heaviest corpus or Something Like that. The Supreme Court anticipated that there would be a flood of cases that had been tried before this decision, so they put a marker down. The june 13th rule. That it would be effective with cases Going Forward and not allowing them to appeal before. That to me, was confusing. If it is a right, it is a right. Not one set by time. What was interesting as well as that there were a number of appeals that work and process that had been filed before that. There were cases of murderers there was one case in new york where someone had knifed four or five people and killed them. That confession, which was perfectly valid when the police had obtained it, because they did not have miranda cards or rules. Fred grant has an interesting book called the self inflicted wound. He said whatever you think about the miranda decision, not applying it to prior cases created the spectacle of bloody murderers walking free. I the court is a pragmatic institution. There are other big criminal procedure decisions that are not retroactive. Remember tell furred taylor, the great advocate for new york . He begged the court not to make it at all retroactive. That is the line they drew. We are going back to the Phoenix Police detective talking about the impact of this decision on him, his fellow officers, and what they thought about it. Let us listen. They thought that the police had abused these individuals, taken advantage of them. Therefore, the police were bad guys. In the minds of a lot of people. Those people that knew the facts did not see it that way. But you have to look at the general public. There was an impact on me. I felt like i had been in an awkward position. That i had been somewhat hot demeaned, because people thought that we had abused him. The most friendly conversation you could ever have. We were talking like an old friend. We did everything according to the book, in my opinion. I was very surprised. I thought well, when i first heard it was going up before the Supreme Court. I did not even know about the state Supreme Court having already looked at it and upheld it. I thought, well i do not think we are going to lose it, because i think we did a good job in my opinion. When it turned out different than i thought it would as a Police Officer, you accept those things. That is the way they want us to do business, that is the way we will do business. There is not much i could do. All i could do was say, well i think the Supreme Court made a mistake. That is what i think. We do the job according to what they tell us to do. Sometimes the results are negative, because we have less convictions, we have more crime, because a lot of people are turned back into society to continue to do their evil. But hey, no skin off my nose when these guys go back to work. We will just try to catch them again. Don carroll cooley, the retired police detective, the arresting officer i in the case that went to the Supreme Court, talking about the impact on his life and career. Another personal story on the table. This is patrick lee he, democratic senator from virginia. At the time, miranda came around he was in vermont in the states attorneys office. He tells us about its effect on the state. At that time it was very controversial. We had to read this guilty accused, as someone had said, the guilty accused. Salafists we have to tell them the rights. Look at it this way. What if you were arrested for something . And you may think, they got the wrong guy. Wouldnt you not want to know what youre right sir . That is something pretty heavy. He also went on to tell us that he had his own little cards with them around the rights on and pass them out to the Police Officers around the state as he was educating them on what the Supreme Court decision was all about. Gentlemen, ive got lots of comments here. This man writes that every lawyer knows that police found a myriad of tactics for even miranda. We found that the decision was and is ongoing. What is your reaction . Ive done a lot of research on the effects of miranda. What you see is theres been a staggering effect online forsman in this country. Before miranda, if you go back to the start of the 1960, you are looking at about a 60 crime clearance rate in this country. Immediately, what you see in 1966, 1967 and 1968, you see a dramatic reduction in crime clearance rates. They fell around 45 and remain there in the 50 years since. If you quantify that, that means about 60,000 Violent Crimes and more than 100,000 property crimes each year go unsolved, even if you control for other factors. As i say, it is not just reading the words off the carts of miranda. Id also forbids police from asking questions of somebody refuses to allow questions to occur. That is the damaging blow that miranda inflicted online enforcement in this country. It truly did handcuff the cops. This is a very important empirical debate. Paul has made a strong contribution to it. There are strong arguments on the other side. They are offered by people like camazar. He notes that the current prevailing view among police and prosecutors is that the mirandas impact on conviction rates is negligible. Typically, around 25 of suspects invoked the rights to silence. Carefully conducted studies indicate that in 55 to 65 of all interrogations, the police succeed in obtaining incriminating statements. Rates comparable to those commonly prevailed in miranda. This is an important statistical debate. We can go back and forth. But i do endorsed view that after having initially resisted miranda very strongly, and president nixon denounced it and ran against it. The police in the eighties and nineties already accepted miranda for the reason that the color states, that is it is so easy to get around. All you have to do is say the magic words and then you can resort to the same trickery, deceptions, subtle pressures that allow people to confess in ways that go against their interest. Miranda did not require the people to make good decisions about whether or not they confess. Unless you believe in divine absolution, it is not a good idea to confess if you are guilty. Miranda did make it easier for the police to inoculate themselves against future challenges. For that reason, i think a prevailing view among Law Enforcement officers as that miranda is not bad for the police. Just to get it on the record, in addition to miranda, there were a suite of Police Related decisions that the court took. On a number of them on the screen. Map versus ohio, which we told two weeks ago in our series. Gideon versus wayne wright. It is this case that has been referred to by our two guests here. Its good beetle versus illinois. It said that you have to have a lawyer during the interrogation for the building block. Then miranda in 1966 and terry versus ohio. Ohio allows them to stop someone saw who is suspected of a crime and if necessary, frisk them, because they might be carrying a weapon. We talked about the controversy of this decision. Again, the court really argued it strongly on both sides as well. You mentioned president nixon campaigned on the law and order. Congress also got into the act and passed the crime control and safe streets act in 1960. Eight what were they trying to do . Congress was outraged by the miranda decision, because criminals were going free and there was expected to be a very dramatic effect on Law Enforcement. In 1960, eight Congress Passed a law, essentially reestablishing the old voluntary meeting of confessions in federal courts. We have 20 minutes left and i want to talk about what has happened to miranda in the years ensuing so there has been a number of cases that weve gotten to refine miranda. What are the important ones . The most important one is the dickerson case. It had a crucial role in it with regards to paul. I will let him keep it up. Essentially, the argument was that congress should, that the court should reinstate the tests that congress had embraced in 1968 and admit confessions if they were voluntary, defined as factors like the time lapsing between arraignment, whether the defendant knew the offense. Whether he was advised of his rights or not. What is significant about the dickerson case is that not a Single Administration had defended it. Neither from johnson through the bush administration. No president s had insisted that if in fact, it was the substitute for miranda this is one of the most dramatic decisions of the Rehnquist Court. After decades of criticizing miranda, chief Justice Rehnquist himself cast a six vote to uphold it. They are acting not against the wishes of subsequent white houses, but actually in conjunction with them. And ended up being a seven two decision. This was the year 2007. The majority was Justice Rehnquist, kennedy, oconnor, scooter, stevens. As we learned, the judge was asked by special invitation give an argument that miranda should be overruled. Tell us your perspective on this. I argued and defensive the 1968 statute. There is the history that jeff was referring to that is disputed. President johnson said we are not going to enforce this law. President nixon who campaigned on the law and ordered Campaign Said it should be argued in court. I argue does a front of the court. One of the strange things that happened arguing in the fence of the federal statute, the Clinton Administration refused to defend the law even though they were very strong arguments that could be made on its behalf. I think that was one of the unfortunate things, and ultimately set the stage for the ruling against it. If the Clinton Administration had sent the solicitor general to defend the law, i think perhaps things might have come out differently. Here is a bit of what chief Justice William rehnquist wrote. We hold that miranda, being a constitutional decision of this court, may not be in effect, overruled by an act of congress, and we declined to overrule miranda ourselves. We therefore hold that miranda and its progeny in this court governing the disability of statements majoring custodial interrogation in both state and federal courts. It is a remarkable decision. Chief Justice Rehnquist both as an associate justice and chief has repeatedly said, miranda is not a constitutional decision. He suggested it would come to the edge he just shocks everyone by seven to two, holding. Why did he do this . One thing he says is that miranda has come to be accepted by the culture. This causes Justice Scalia his head almost explodes, he is so upset about this ruling. He said the court has converted miranda into the very key ops pyramid of judicial arrogance. I did not know what keeps pyramid meant. I did not know what it was her how to pronounce it before justice clear reminded us that key opposite king who is so arrogant that he believed he could build the biggest pyramid and history and kill a lot of people doing. That chief Justice Rehnquist really was a a pragmatist. Much more conservative. He had been the lone ranger and a little bit here pure in his constitutional. Abuse we saw those tv warnings. We saw the fact that this symbolizes Law Enforcement across the board. Thanks to its acceptance and popular culture. That combined with the fact that the other justices and cops had accepted it meant that they made a very powerful argument that this was a case brought in good faith. But seven to two, rejected. He is in pete is on the air. Hi. Good evening. My question is about the silliness detective case in 2013. I think some of the inherent weaknesses and miranda were on full display in that case. That you have to invoke it right to silence. That assumes that you know those rights and the police cannot take that opportunity away from you. When but they dont necessarily saw give you the queue. Can you guys please explain that case . Thank you. That is one of the follow on cases. I think one of the things that is remarkable about remand miranda decided almost 50 years after the decision, the basic framework still applies today. I view that perhaps a little differently than jeff does. Some people look at the dickerson decision and say that was a bullet that was dodged. We did not have to overrule miranda. I think dickerson and some of the other decisions hat was an opportunity missed. We havent not updated miranda at all in the last 50 years. We have not looked at emerging top technologies like videotaping. If i am an innocent person being questioned by a Police Officer, i would much rather have a video camera running during the interrogation to make sure that the entire process can be reconstructed later. Instead, the only thing i get is an officer reading a few words off of a card and making the sign a waiver form. I think we need to think about new ways of implementing miranda that at the same time, not only protects suspects better, but give Law Enforcement the ability to ask a few more questions. Next is brian in washington. Okanagan. My question is the speaker is keen on having Police Officers ask more questions. My question is, does he believe that police should keep on asking questions when the suspect says i dont want to talk . Miranda says that the police have to stop questioning at a certain point. Does he believed that right should not exist . I think what we ought to be doing is changing the miranda rules so that they do not have these hard and facts with what i call question cut off rules. I call this the mother may i rule of Police Officers where they have to give a warning and a waiver to someone in order to ask questions. If somebody says no i dont want to ask questions. They cannot ask even reasonable questions for a reasonable period of time. I would allow Police Officers to continue to ask questions so long as they were not extracting involuntary confessions. If i could just jump in on unequivocally endorsing pauls suggestion of videotaping interrogations. We are having a huge debate in this country about the use of body cams. Obviously iphones are transforming encounters between cops and citizens. The american law of institute of a committee im privileged to serve on is coming up with rules for body. Camps they say there are plenty of civil libertarians who agreed that videotaping interrogations would help police and suspects. That does not necessarily mean that miranda should be thrown out as well. Both could be good. There is also no doubt, as paul said in the previous caller suggested as well, was the court has changed since the Rehnquist Court reaffirmed the dickerson decision and dissenters and cases like the salinas case and the tom kids case from 2010. The suspect does not invoke his miranda rights and the court says that he waived his right because he failed to do so unambiguously. This is not a decision that has a broad support at the time of dickerson. It remains hotly contested on the court today. On twitter, tripwire asks, can you please comment on the effects of the 2010 decision. That the sip specks must tell police they will remain private and invoke the right to remain silent just the same as tell police they want a lawyer. That is such a unique fact pattern. It is a situation where essentially somebody sits quite for 90 minutes and eventually ends up making a statement. Those kinds of decisions, the salinas decision in 2010 covered those patterns. But in day today long forsman, i dont think we see real change in police effectiveness. Again, that is not just my view on the data. If you look at the fbi data, the clock crime clearance rate is the same as it was in 2010, is the same as it was in 1970. Sadly, police in America Today are less effective and clearing or solving crimes than they were before the law and forced the decision. To give the two views on the impact of thump cans and salinas. You criticize the court for cutting down on miranda on opening the doors for prolonged interrogations to wear suspects down. The u. S. Attorney general said, the new flexibility would ease the burden on military intelligence and police and provide a more flexible response to terrorism. These decisions are having in effect. Kevin into song. You are on. Hi. My question concerns shifts in the american Law Enforcement policy in the 1960s. With the implementation of the exclusionary role and other rulings, including miranda the arizona, im wondering if it was the court itself that helped shift Law Enforcement policies to a more professional level or was it Public Opinion and the turbulence surrounding questionable Law Enforcement policies, especially in the south in the 1960s . Thank you very much. Such a superb question. Do you know whose book i would love you to read . The late william stutzswung he wrote a beautiful book about the relationship between Public Opinion and the criminal procedure. One of the points he makes as the court tends to mirror broader transient society rather than caused them. When crime in the sixties went down, the court became more liberal. When it went up in the seventies, it became more conservative and vice versa. The notion that the court transforms society does not seem right. On the other hand, the criminal procedure revolution of the war in court was called a revolution for reason. It did certainly change the rules that the police operated under in a significant way. And it came to symbolize the importance of respecting what warren called the dignity of every individual in a way that had broader cultural shifts. A question from twitter. Did miranda work i . Most people waive the rights in hopes of gaining the system and controlling the Police Interrogation. We have about 17 minutes left in our program. I want to tell you we have one more in our 12 part series. If youve missed any of it and want to learn more about the cases, we have a very robust website in partnership with the National Constitution center, with lots of background on these cases. And also, more video attached to each one of them. You also can buy a book that has been cool published. It is called, landmark cases, and it is written by reporter tony mauro. You can find it on our website. Iowa it is eight 95. It gives you a background and the legacy of all the 12 cases featured in the series. I want to get to a couple more calls and then we will wrap this all. Up next its pam in texas. Hi. I just wanted to ask a quick question. Do you think with the terrorism and everything that we are facing now in this more modern era, the 50 years that its been, do you think it is time to maybe update or change the miranda in some way . Descriptively, we know that if fears of terrorism are increasing and people want the government to be tougher on crime, the court may mirror that. If you are predicting, i think it is unlikely that the court would hold miranda to terrorist suspects interrogated abroad. We are having a huge debate in this country as weve been discussing about Police Brutality, over the criminalization, the treatment of African American citizens. That could go very much in the opposite direction. With a new sensitivity to the importance of Human Dignity and the fact that all of these encounters are being caught on cameras makes it much harder for the police to engage in the kind of incommunicative on transparent conduct that they used to. For all those reasons, i dont think miranda is going to go away anytime soon. If there is no consequence for wrongful police conduct, then what will if there is an involuntary confession it should not be admitted. John maranda puts in place a series of highly technical procedural rules and throws out perfectly good confessions because the police have made some kind of mistake along the way. That is the real problem. We talk about Human Dignity. One of the things that has changed a little bit in the last the years is we now have a much more robust rights movement. A lot of books have been written telling the maranda story but no one has told the story of patricia, the young woman who was raped by maranda. There is now more attention to that side of the equation. I think that is a change for good. Susan ed in connecticut. Does the Supreme Court every take a macro view of the legal system for Self Assessment . A results focused, both good and bad. For example, the u. S. Incarceration rate is the highest in the world. That might be on the bat side, but on the other side, crime is declining. They ever take into consideration how to go about their business . Great question. Person if professor stutz and others are right, at least they are channeling it somehow. Whether its reading the newspapers are having a general sense of things. What is striking is how an empirical many of these decisions are. They are written at you are not a lot of engagement with Law Enforcement officials themselves, either victims or the accused and for all those reasons, much of the most interesting work in policing nowadays is being done not in the courts and constitutional decisions, but in regulations of Police Departments passed by states. Illinois and others and almost every state is grappling with questions of body cameras and Police Interrogations. These are often legislated decisions and i think mr. Cassell would agree that for legislatures to crumple with this and come up with their own detailed rules is appropriate and it is good to focus on the facts. But it sounds as if this case would become cases with the Supreme Court, if there are different rules one of the things that have been the biggest harm to america, is it petra fight the law for Police Interrogation. The rules today in 2015 are the same as they were 1966. Just as weve made advances and medicine and auto safety, we could make advances in the way we regulate Police Interrogation. Advances that allow both police to get more confessions and at the same time, provide protections for suspects. But miranda, because its a constitutional right, made those kinds of accommodations, changes or Reform Efforts essentially impossible. We will wrap this up by listening to earl warrens grandson, jeffrey earl warren. He shares with us some family history. His grandfathers view of what the miranda decision and other policing decisions did for society. Lets watch. I would like the court throughout history to be remembered as the court of the people. No one can say how the opinions of any particular court or any particular era will stand the test of time. All one can do is to do his best to make his opinions conform to the constitutions and laws of the United States and then hope that they will be so considered in the future. This is the binder of letters that i have from problem or an papa warren. In 1969, he decided to resign. I had been at the university of california. I had written him a very passionate letter, how we were going to burn everything down and i would never bring children into this world because it was such a mess. He writes back to me, i will just read a couple of sections. The world is not perfect because human nature is not perfect. And he goes on to say if all of these laws were obeyed, many of our problems would be solved or at least they would be in manageable shape for solutions. We must also take into consideration and he underlines, human nature. He goes on to say, we do not want to burn everything down because the result would be anarchy. And i know you know from your books that governments and institutions are struck down. They are almost always replaced by autocracies. That rule repressive lee. And who suffers most under them . The minorities of course. And he finishes, i know jeff, that i have not resolve any of your perplexitys, but my hope is that in the young people of today, i believe that they can and that they will bring to bear the strength of their idealism to right the wrongs that we regretfully have been done or ignored by former generations and particularly, by my own. Affectionately, grandpa. Earl warren, former chief justices communication to his grandson. Last word what we discussed tonight. I think earl warrens legacy is a mixed one. I think unfortunately, miranda illustrates that, it is an example of politicizing the courts. Once the courts become politicized and the justices become nothing more than politicians in ropes, we have bitter confirmation battles and that sort of thing that we have seen playing out over the decades. What a beautiful clip. What a great name. I love the godless america. But with that shows is or lawrence fundamental concern with translating the values of the fifth amendment into the modern age and the fifth amendment concerned about that crimes, not exerting psychological pressure on heretics to confess. Not by being beaten, but just by having their will overburn by psychological pressure. Warren takes that and makes it modern for the 20th century and and sit by quoting my hero, Justice Lewis brandeis, that how government is the potent, the omnipotent teacher. You see that in his letter as well. He was a teacher and he got the courthouse to be a shining emblem for what Human Dignity and with the fifth amendment means. We heard the two justices say that you can do the best shot you could in the context of the law. Time will affect decisions. In fact, you are suggesting it is time for us as a society to rethink the changes in technology. I think it is. I think miranda could be updated and could be more effective. I think it would be an effort, as jeff mentioned, for a lot of people are thinking about this, and hopefully we can all come together and try to think about things like body cameras, videotaping and interrogations. Other things that would update miranda and overrule miranda. Thanks to both of you for being here tonight on our 11 of 12 cases and the landmark case series. We appreciate your insight from the miranda case. And the overall approach of the war in court. As always, thank you so much for being in our audience tonight and your Great Questions and comments. Our series on landmark cases, produced in cooperation with the National Constitution center, we explore the issues, people and places involved in some of the nations most significant Supreme Court cases. We begin at eight eastern with mccaul of versus maryland. A case that solidified the governments ability to take actions not explicitly mentioned in the constitution. Then at 9 30, the civil rights cases of 1883 where this decision struck down the Civil Rights Act of 1875 that granted all people access to public accommodations like trains and theaters regardless of race. Watch landmark cases tuesday night on cspan three and any time at cspan. Org. On tuesday, pharmaceutical checks to find covid19 Vaccine Research before the house and commerce subcommittee. Watch live at 10 am eastern on cspan three. Online at cspan. Org, or listen lie with the free cspan radio app. Line more cases, cspan special series producing cooperation with the National Constitution center. Exploring the human stories and constitutional dramas behind 12 historic Supreme Court decisions. Royal you