They are as fundamental and essential to justice today as almost anything ever created. They are a product of the fifth amendment to the u. S. Constitution. Thats where they came from, thats why we have been and thats what they stand for today. Miranda lived here in mesa, arizona. He was born in mesa, arizona. He was a young man in his mid20s at the time. He was suspected by the Phoenix Police department of being involved in the abduction, the robbery, and the kidnapping of three different women on three different occasions. All of those occasions happen in downtown phoenix. The pickup, for lack of a better word, was in downtown phoenix. Some of the crimes took place out in the desert. At the time that was thought to be the desert, its now 20 street and bethany home. Its no longer the desert. Its a major part of central phoenix today. But thats how it started with being a suspect in those crimes. The police went to his home in mesa, arizona, two Police Officers, and they asked him if he would come down to the Police Station in central phoenix. They would drag them down. They wanted to talk to them about some criminal activity. He wasnt sure what at the time. He agreed to do that. So they brought it down here and interviewed him, or interrogated him, depends on your perspecti perspective. Here in the building we are in today. But the police had no direct evidence of any kind. They had no physical evidence. They had no eyewitness identification. They had no admissions. He was a suspect but they had nothing upon which to base a formal arrest or to charge him. But they asked him for an interview and he voluntarily read that interview. He was not warned of the consequences of this interview, because the law did not require that in 1963. So during the course of talking to him, the Police Officer that was in charge of the case and was the primary interrogator or interviewer at the time, his name was carol cooney. He was then a police detective. He stayed with the Police Department and became a captain. He is alive and well today, still lives here in phoenix. And during the course of the interview, miranda denied any connection to any of these three cases that the Phoenix Police department was investigating. He said he was not involved, didnt abduct anybody, didnt rape anybody, didnt rob anybody. That was as clear statement. So they asked him, detective cooley, asked him if he would agree to appear in a lineup. And they would bring an one of the victims or two of the victims, it wasnt quite clear, and if he is telling the truth then they will not be able to identify. They had the other evidence and the open with him about that. They had no other evidence. So they asked him if he would agree to be in the lineup, a photo, not a photo lineup, and actual lineup. That also took place in this building, and he agreed. They had a room for that. They brought into a victims wee able to come in on short notice. Phoenix was a very small place in those days. And so the two women came in and neither of them, neither of the two women could identify him with certainty. One of the two women said that she thought it might be the man with, wearing poster number one. They were all identified as one, two, three and four only in this line of room, but she wasnt sure. The other woman couldnt pick one of the four, but agreed it might be number one but there was no positive identification. And so on the basis of that, detective cooley went back into the Interview Room where miranda was waiting, and miranda asked detective cooley the question, did they pick me out . How did i do . Some question to that effect. This interview was not taperecorded or video recorded. This was 1963. And detective cooley said, im sorry, or words to that effect, they nailed you. I think the best thing for you is to just tell me what happened. We will see what we can do to help you. And miranda did. He confessed to all of them. He described in some detail, although theres no recording of that, he described in some detail. And detective cooley said, which was good Police Procedure then and now, well, id like you to write this out in your own hand and i ask you to sign it after youve written it out and after i read it. So miranda wrote one page, confession, in his own handwriting and gave it to detective cooley. And coolly ready is it all right, if this is the truth, if this is your statement, signed down at the bottom. And there is a reference in that written statement that this statement can be used in court against you. Thats what the four elements of the miranda warnings. So that part is there. He then signed it and it became exhibit one. The only exhibit in his trial. This is the sixth floor of the old Maricopa County superior courthouse. It still formed as a superior court. On the first floor of this building, this is where miranda was tried. We are now on the sixth floor. This is the jail part turkey was kept here. He was kept her in this jail until his trumpet after trial he was moved to a temper institution and then he went to the state penitentiary. The physical presence is important because the interview happened here. He was jailed here. He was captured during the trial. There were two separate trials. There were three cases, three women involved. He admitted in conversation with detective cooley to all three cases. But in only one of the cases was asked to write out the statement. And that was in the rate of one of the three women. And it was clear to a jury of making an assumption here, that his confession is a true voluntary confession. He said it was. He didnt take the stand in either case, which is standard process in those kinds of cases. So he was quickly convicted by two different juries in two different cases, one day apart. Then went into the system in 1963, and that led to the appellate process which began after the actual trials. His lawyer on the trial was a man named alvin more. Alvin more of the time in 1963 was a 73yearold lawyer here in phoenix. During that trial, during the rape case, alvin moore objected to the admissibility of the written confession, and its objection was because he didnt have a lawyer before he gave that statement. Alvin moore statement to the trial judge, judge mcfate, was i object because there was no lawyer present at the time he gave that and no one told him that he didnt have to give it, or words to that effect in the trial record. So when the case with to the Arizona Supreme Court, it went up there in 1965, that was the record. There was an objection made by a lawyer on the defendants behalf that his confession should not have been admitted and shown to the jury because he didnt have a lawyer at the time he gave it. So when the case went to the Arizona Supreme Court they came down with an opinion in 1965, again they rejected the argument by alvin moore that the confession should not be admitted because he didnt have a lawyer. The Arizona Supreme Court said thats not required under american law. The Supreme Court has not said that i confession is inadmissible if you dont have a lawyer. What the court has said two years prior in a case called acevedo versus the united states, the court has said that if the suspect asks for a lawyer at any time before or during interrogation, then you have to give them one right in. In this case miranda had not asked for a lawyer. So that is the issue that the Supreme Court took up in 1966. So in the briefing stage, prior to oral argument in the miranda case, all of the briefs focus on that question, who has to give these warnings, or are warnings required course if they are required who has to give them and who do they have to give into . Just knowledgeable people or everybody . So that was the setting for this case. And the briefs and all four cases focused on the sixth amendment, which is the right to counsel. So when the oral argument is held in february of 1966 in the miranda case, there were two lawyers principally involved in the case, john frank wrote the brief and john flynn argued the case. They were both in the same law firm, a phoenix firm, still here. And in his argument to the court, the Supreme Court in february 1966, john flynn was asked a question by Justice Stuart during the argument. Justice stewarts question was Something Like this, these are not exact words but they are close, he said so, your position is that theres a point in time with this interrogation becomes almost confrontational, because the Police Officers digging for a confession and the suspect is avoiding that, which is the case in all of these cases, so what is your view when this confrontation occurs . Does the sixth amendment required at that point that a lawyer be appointed when theres a conversation going on . And mr. Flynns said, mr. Justice, the issue here is whether the man or the defendant has a right to remain silent. The only person that can tell him that is a lawyer. And so the fifth amendment right against selfincrimination, the sixth amendment right to counsel connected here is that juncture, that intersection. Somebody has to tell that suspect before he or she confesses and thats where the sixth amendment comes in. The court after that argument fashion an opinion that ultimately came down based on the fifth amendment and tangentially tied to the sixth amendment. So the primary issue of the miranda opinion came down is americas right to remain silent. Thats the first warning. You have a right to remain silent. The language came from chief justice earl warren. He wrote the opinion, the majority opinion. It was a split opinion, by fourr decision. The reaction to the decision was on the Law Enforcement community very negative fivefour. And very reluctant and very suspecting. So the Law Enforcement community said its not our job to get people we arrest information about their legal rights. That ought to come from the lawyer. Its not our job to get them lawyer. What youre going to do by this decision is the end result will be a lot of people will not be charged with crimes that they committed when they should be charged with crimes that they committed. And the reason we cant charge is because they didnt admit it. So the admission of those crimes is a very important element of all Law Enforcement, understandably so. So the reaction was negative, largely. Time magazine and newsweek and other magazines and other newspapers, there was an awful lot of coverage about this in 1966. We will examine cases that involve the miranda warning. But quit telling us that its a rules prophylactic rules case. Its a constitutional decision of the court to. What makes it interesting is that opinion was written by chief justice rehnquist. He was at the time of the miranda decision a lawyer in the case. History repeats itself in many ways. Miranda was from here. Its then lawyer rehnquist and all of that gets transferred to the year 2000 and becomes a constitutional decision. Something interesting happened in 2000 when the case went up. If you begin with that case and read the brief , the briefs in Supreme Court cases , they invite a class of people for lack of a better word. Theyre called anarchists she arrived or amicus briefs, friends of the court. Theyre not party to the case but theyre interested in the issue so they invite peopleto write briefs , theyre called amicus briefs and a good many of those briefs were filed in the case by g of police associations, other Law Enforcement agencies are going for miranda. No longer believing miranda is a bad thing. No longer believing it harms Law Enforcement. Believing what the reality has become and the reality is that if the Police Officer does his or her job, and gives those miranda warnings and does them in a proper way, recording, video recording, written documentation in some form thats reliable, then what happened in the Trial Court System is that many, i think most, it may not be 100 percent but its a high percentage. If the profession is miranda compliant , then the judge fairly routinely omits it from evidence because it is miranda compliant, its become a good way for a good cop to get a good confession in evidence. Use the miranda document. Document it. Say it in writing. Get the suspect to sign it. Do it recorded, tape recorded. Audio recorded. Anything so theres some evidentiary basis for it so thats become a reality today. And as a consequence, lawyers and judges, judges in the middle and lawyers on both sides, prosecutors and defense lawyers dont argue much anymore about the miranda doctrines. What they argue about is were the miranda rights waived or not. Thats the new question du jour, has been for a long time so thats whats happening is we now argue about the waiver, not weather. And we now argue about consequence in ways that i think are central to the due process of law. Encore presentation of some of the stops along the cspan city tour continues as we take you to san jose california. So many people come to california because they see it as a union. And of course television hasnt helped cause ask anybody, particularly east of the rockies and they all think all people in california drive
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.