Unpopular roles. Casess go through a few that illustrate very dramatically and visually, what ofmeans to live in a society 310 million different people. Togetherd to stick because they believe in a rule of law. Good evening and welcome to cspan and the National Constitution centers landmark cases series. Case number 11 out of 12, this is a 1966 case, maranda versus arizona that help to revolutionize policing in america. Under arrest, you have the right to an attorney, you have the right to remain silent, anything you say can be used against you in a court of law. Do you know your miranda rights . Yes. Lets hear them. Are you sure you understand your rights. Oh yes, he explained them to me. Just like on television. Talk to my lawyer. You have the right to an attorney. Anything you say may be used against you. You have the right to remain silent. You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak with an attorney. As you can see, miranda rights became part of our national culture. We will learn the story tonight from our two guest. Table, returns to the from the National Constitution center. Yet he is a Supreme Court expert. Thank you for being back. Paul is with us as well, good to have you. Former judge from a district in utah. He served as attorney general from 19 86 to 1988. Thank you for being here. What a constitutional issues . It tries to settle a question that has been around the country for several hundred years now. How much pressure can Police Officers put on their suspects when they are trying to get information from that suspect and what sort of rules will regulate what confessions can be used in court . So many of the amendments in the constitution concerned criminal rights. What made this landmark . It transformed the culture. Look at the tv shows. To see if i could do it by heart before the show. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you can say can be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. How did i do . It is so simple to the culture. When chief Justice Rehnquist reaffirmed it, the cases come to be accepted by the culture. How many cases can we say about that . Before we get into the story, lets have a general discussion of the 1940s and the 1950s and the 1960s in terms of policing. A big debate in this country is policing right now. Why is that . What happened in the country, as we saw, significant improvement in policing in this country. 1930s,d degree in the was a fairly widespread tactic. As you move forward certainly in the 1960s, those tactics had started to disappear. The question was, if pressure isnt going to be used in physical form, police will use psychological test and techniques to get confessions and what kind of regulation should there be on them . That was an issue miranda had to wrestle with. At that time, where the regional aspects to this . , blacks in jim crow the south might have had more problem with executions in other areas of the country . A huge debate about police to Police Brutality, focusing on the south. In the 1930s, the court had a broad standard. The confessions had to be voluntary. You couldnt use the third degree and be confessions out of people. But in 1961, the Civil Rights Commission issues a report finding Widespread Police Brutality in the south. There is a debate about how much that is still going on. In the face of this there is a criminal procedure revolutionizing in court. In 1961, the matt decision. 1963 it says you have to have a lawyer present during Police Interrogation. Case, you have to have a courtappointed lawyer. Basically a Supreme Court led by the fourth is using and fifth amendment of the constitution to address what it perceives as a problem with Police Brutality in the south. That is the background. We will spend more time on the war in court warren court. Who is miranda . You have to look not just at him but at the victim. Criminal,s a repeat someone who had been arrested and convicted a number of times. He would just through an did not have established employment. Question, atin knife point he abducted a young woman and raped her. That is the backdrop. The revolution in court the other thing going on , violent crimeis is skyrocketing in america in the 1960s. Whether it is the court or something else, that is part of the backdrop also. Question, march 2, 1963, the womans name was patricia, leaving work in arizona and on the way home she was kidnapped, raped, robbed, and driven back to her house. Very serious accusations of serious crimes. How did it proceed from here . The following week there is another robbery and some witnesses see a car that seems to belong to miranda at a bus stop. The police check out the car and go to his house, talk to his girlfriend, she essentially fingers him. He is accused and taken to the station. There is a dispute about whether or not he is told his rights. Some states did and others didnt do it. Essentially, he signed a confession saying, i did it. He is convicted. Was never readhe his rights and that is when the case began. The Phoenix Police department and what makes this interesting is that the detective who arrested miranda is still very much with us and still with the venus Phoenix Police department. He gave us a tour. They have a display there. He tells us the story from their 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 miranda. I asked her, are you sure . She said it looks like him but if i heard his voice i might be able to make a positive. I didnt say anything. We went to the room and i waited. I wasnt quite sure what i would say. Ernie asked me, how did i do . I said you didnt do so good. I guess i better tell you about it. He did. He told us about the kidnapping, rape, and robbery. After that, i asked him if he would sign a written confession. Which says at the beginning of the report, i did this, without coercion or threats or promises of immunity. Knowing my legal rights. He wrote the statement, on one page, the writing was excellent. The spelling was excellent. 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 and building. Miranda would have been brought in here and he would have been processed just like every other prisoner. He would have been searched. He would have been transported or taken over, shown his new we hadover here, four identical tanks. This particular one would have been where he was cap. Kept. Re he was the felony tank. He would have booked into here. He may have spent a week or a couple of days. That is retired detective harold cooley. That that offut the bat lead the system to get interested in this . Is the perfect test case. This was in the case where someone was beaten. , she isce used tricks identified you as the one who raped her you might as well tell us what happened. Psychological pressure. Of course, one of the other interesting things, as the program unfolds, miranda ended up radically changing the rules. In 1963 when this interrogation took lace, there wasnt a single precedent in place that supported throwing that confession out. For 140 years they had been admitted in court. That is when chief Justice Warren got interested in the issue. He had two trials, the robbery and the rape. What happened to him . He was challenged on six amendment grounds because they said you had a right to counsel during interrogation. He was convicted on both . He was. He was convicted and sentenced to 25 years on the robbery and also the kidnapping, all, and was serving them at the same time in 1963. The Appellate Court in arizona, the constitutional sixth amendment and the Court Rejects the claim that the confession was improper. They informed him of his legal rights and the only question was, was there a voluntary violation of the sixth amendment. It may be admissible and made without an attorney it did not violate constitutional rights. The sixth amendment says . You have the right to effective assistance of counsel. , he was talking to the detective, he didnt have a lawyer then and he should have had a lawyer. The problem with that argument is for 170 years in american history, the rule has always been you get a lawyer once you go to court, once charges have been filed. Historically the sixth amendment would not have been in play. The fifth amendment neither. That says you have the right not to be compelled to be a witness against you. Witnessing has always occurred in court. Under the precedents, this is not the problem at all. To use the confession. That is why the lawyers are looking for creative theories to present. For the nonlawyers we keep trying to explain. Appealt have this upheld. How does it make its way to federal . You have to file a petition. To agree to take the case. A few years earlier there was the gideon case, immortalized by book. Y lewis says book letterendant handwrote a saying that he did not have proper defense. The aclu got interested and they brought in a lawyer called john frank who was in arizona lawyer. Corporate justice black wrote a book about him. He was a constitutional scholar. Frank decided to bring in local counsel, john flynn, once you get the big guns like that going , then the Supreme Court is interested. A note about john frank, he didnt end up arguing the case. He pops up later in the national scene. He served as counsel for anita hills confirmation hearing. A very distinguished lawyer. Miranda goes from someone in the bowels of the Interrogation Room in arizona to someone who has a highpowered legal team. Warbo on comment from twitter. He was a rape her and a killer. The kind of question is what kind of liberty should we uphold. In fact if you go around the find today it is hard to a country that would find those inadmissible. Miranda is itth goes so far the pendulum swing so far in the direction of protecting suspects interests, people like patricia, the woman who was raped are given short shrift. Note that in that decision chief Justice Warren disagrees and he says at the time the f e i was routinely giving more the fbi was routinely giving warnings. In england, there were similar warnings. There was a good discussion about how rooted it was in the fifth and sixth amendments. We have to talk about the history of the fifth amendment. It was not sure that it was made up out of thin air. With respect to warnings, it is true about the f ei. The problem with miranda truth about the fbi. The problem with miranda is the exclusionary rule. It sets up rules that say you cannot question certain people or if you do certain things evidence can be used. If all of the procedural apparatus that is associated with miranda that even today needs tens of thousands of criminal cases are going unsolved every year because of these procedural requirements. Welets get back later on talk about the consequences. First about the chief Justice Warren court. 1962, inone we did was wright was ayron kennedy appointee. What about these new additions . Getting, ing gideon, he was an lbj supporter, he got in trouble when he was nominated to be chief justice for devising lbj on the side and for other matters. He is someone who is very committed to the courts procedural structure. Byron white, not so much. Scholar, a football player, detrimental to congress, proLaw Enforcement, in defense. Of miranda. There was a balance on both sides. The most striking thing about the warren court, look at all the former judges and politicians on this court. Judge inpolice court alabama. He saw the third degree firsthand. There is another great biography. There are so many. The great biography of hugo how as ach describes lawyer, he is trying the defendant. He brings them up and closes the shades of the defendant looks menacing and doesnt say anything. I wanted the jury to take a look at that man. Later he regrets that kind of behavior. As a police court judge he thought he saw how the system can be abused when the third degree is used. Politician asmer well. All of these guys. Most important, earl warren, the District Attorney of the county. He prosecuted these people. He is sensitive in a previous case called spano. Defendants can be sentenced for a huge amount of time because of residual factors beyond their control your these are not ivory tower judges and that they know how the system works. I want to talk a little bit more about earl warrens biography. He was also the attorney general of the state of california and as governor. Terms his own father was murdered in a robbery. But that into context as to the views he brings to the court. Mr. Cassel i think there are a lot of number a large number of politicians and the Supreme Court at this time. I think in my view it had not successfully made the transition politician who get to have their own views and impose their views on legislation, they have now switched to a judicial role where there duty is to interpret the law, not make it. Politicians can pass laws, do different things. And i think at least five justices were ready to do the same thing through Supreme Court decisionmaking. That is of course one of the legacies of the war in court court, to throughout rules they think everyone in the country should follow. You both used the expression in the third degree, where does that come from . Beating, to do with you take it one degree, two, and then one more. In this case, the third degree means coercive pressure that doesnt involve physical violence. There is a history here. It has to do with the history of the fifth amendment. This is the story of john and the tin dissenters. During the british star chamber, if you were a heretic you could forced to take an oath to answer any question matter what it will be. If you are at the center and you are asked are you a protestant, you can lie and go to eternal dam nation, tell the truth and be burned, or refuse to answer and be in prison for contempt. Saysave to answer and he lets see if i can pronounce it foreignng language] you are required to answer questions that someone with Human Dignity should never be forced to answer, it translates to the beatings of the 1930s which work for bid and which were forbidden. Now the court is trying to take history saying now that we know that psychological pressure can be used, how can we honor the word of the fifth amendment today. We have a video of chief Justice Warren talking about it. Lets watch. It was a common thing 50 years ago. Nothad to watch for it was committed, but i think lawaratively few enforcements now are addicted to the third degree. And it is because the courts bhorred that kind of conduct and say that kind of conduct is and old standby the police, a man is not given a fair trial, and therefore, his conviction cannot stand. That is in the interest of everyone. What would you like to say about this . Mr. Cassel it is interesting. When you talk about the third degree, i think the chief justice hit the nail on the head that even back when he was speaking, comparatively few cases involved the third degree. What youre saying, i think sometimes when people talk about the miranda decision is somewhat of a bait and switch. The point is made that people have been tortured to give confessions, so now we need the miranda rules. The miranda rules arent designed to address those kinds of things. Torture had long been abolished. I think what we should be talking about and the Supreme Court should of been talking about is psychological torture the Police Officers used. Here are comments from someone on twitter who writes, since the fbi had such were loads of federal crimes involved . Mr. Cassel the fbi had something you had the right to sayin silent, anything you can be used against you, and will get you a lawyer when we go to court. Miranda kind of garbled that and said were going to impose that on the whole country. One thatsed the same the fbi used, we wouldnt be here talking about miranda. What chief justice unwarranted providingules warnings be provided and created this fast exclusionary rule apparatus that throws out all kinds of confessions and imposes prohibitions on asking reasonable questions of suspects in custody. We willnts . Mr. Rosen talk about what its effects were later, but the cops came to feel that basically it was far less am both sides asked for your they were two core positions in miranda. Rule, no one questionings without an officer present. The cops wanted the opposite. A moderate oneth saying you have to be warned in once you are warned, it is presumed that the statement is voluntary unless you say the magic words i want a lawyer. The sophisticated device is say the magic words, i want a lawyer, because then the interrogation has to stop. You are hugely empowered if you say this words. That was the big innovation of miranda. Many people say it didnt increase that many confessions. First he a thing you have to read the warnings, second if you say i want a lawyer, the interrogation stops. Waiveird, an order to these rights, it has to be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. With the background you gave us about the chief justice, he was looking for a way to address lookedin the system and for cases that that the bill. When a cases came up, there were four. Consolidated cases to present a full picture of Police Interrogation an america. One is miranda versus arizona, then westover versus United States, a federal case. The solicitor general argues that is Thurgood Marshall arguing against the miranda rules in the against those kinds of restraints on Police Interrogation, because of course a would affect state Law Enforcement agencies and also fbi and other federal Law Enforcement agencies would have to come i as well. When a to comply. Cases go before the court, how does the process work . There is a lot of argument that takes place over time. In addition to Thurgood Marshall there was another distinguished isyer who said he arguing for the state of new york and resisting the broad fifth amendment rule in all cases, and urges the court it not be retroactive and not free people already convicted your to you do have, interestingly, two civil libertarian here h heroes. This came to the court, can with theseolved court cases lasting more than seven hours over three days we dont cvs kind of structures very often now. This seems really complicated because of the number of cases and lawyers. How does the court approach it . The court is trying to put in front of it, the full array of issues that come up in Police Interrogation. I think one thing striking about miranda is how much it departed from the ordinary approach to judging and judicial process. Specifically you take the facts of the case and reach a narrow rule to address those particular facts, but keeping with the idea that many of the justices were politicians wanting to announce some broad and sweeping role, they set up the case sweeping allowbasin of the case to the role to come out of the decision they issued. Randa had one hour 35 minutes of argument in front of the court cheered as we heard from jeffrey rosen, john one, and lawyersnklin, the two making the argument for miranda arizona assistant attorney general, gary nelson, made the attorney for the national District Attorneys association, anything noteworthy about the argument . Mr. Rosen i think one of the things quite striking, we mentioned the strong legal team of miranda, in fact marandas brief doesnt even argue that the fifth amendment was violated, the reason being is the fifth amendment had always been limited to the courtroom, you can be a witness against yourself and work from yourself in the courtroom. We will talk in a moment about how that decision comes out, but there is a complete disconnect andn the arguments advanced the decision that comes forward. We welcome your participation in the conversation tonight and the line people are dialing in our divided demographically. You can also send us a tweet, please use the landmark cases. And finally, facebook has a conversation underway. If you would like to make a conversation there, three different ways to be involved, phone, tweet, and facebook. Mr. Rosen just a rate response, flynn actually did mention the fifth amendment. He said to justice stewart, if a man you his rights, educated enough to assert his amendment counsel, heuest does acknowledge that. He gives a speech the next year and says when we talk about the effective assistance of counsel, you should know what i did. Iargued essentially briefed and argued the case entirely on a sixth amendment proposition and now the Supreme Court decides it another way. So they end up saying, where recommitting were we committing ineffective assistance of counsel . Is a confession admissible in a court of law if it was a gained without warnings against againstn and selfincrimination . Who determines whether a defendant has legally waived his or her rights . When should an attorney be appointed . And what is the standard for judging whether voluntary confessions are admissible . We are in an area where the Supreme Court started recording audio. You will hear a little bit of the two attorneys arguing. Aslisten to some of the case they made it and we will come back and talk to our two guests. The only person who can adequately advise Ernest Miranda is a lawyer your that he had a right not to incriminate himself, that he had the right not to make any statement, that he had the right to be reof further lessening be free of rather questioning by the police toortment, that if he was port to employ counsel that the state would ernest him counsel state would furnish him counsel. Amendmentat the sixth and every part of our constitution applies to everyone, poor, rich, ignorant, influential, what have you. I dont argue that. I think any prosecutor argues that. ,ut a miranda characteristically by the petitioner is pretrade in this to make an attempt something that isnt there. Jeff rosen, what did you hear their . Mr. Rosen he is not arguing that the confession is compelled by gunpoint. We are not talking aboutir degree third degree. Both attorneys are struggling to use the sixth amendment and also the fifth amendment. They are trying to come up with an alternative to the standard that the court already uses which is called a totality of the circumstances from a case called spano. You have to look at all the characteristics of a defendant, are the educated, do they speak english well, do they understand their rights. Test. A very mushy thats why they were stressing he only had an eight grade education, he wasnt well educated, he didnt under and his rights. O, they determined it was too unpredictable. And that is why you hear the lawyers saying the fifth and sixth amendments apply to everyone. It is not appropriate to make casebycase determinations. What did you here . Mr. Cassel i hear to arguments going on, one is the argument that while this statement may not have an involuntary in a traditional sense, you still think there is a lot of pressure there. The problem with that argument american history, these statements had routinely been admitted. The Supreme Court is grappling with the idea of a duly want to throw out everything that has gone on before. The other thing i hear is a per meiotic a pragmatic concern. When you say miranda should have had a lawyer during Police Interrogation, the lawyer is going to say dont answer any questions right now, say nothing whatsoever. If you go that route you end up with no Police Interrogation in america. Before we find out what the judges said, lets listen to some of our callers. From what ion is, know, it seems like chief Justice Warren wanted to expand escondido of the versus illinois case, my question is why i think one of the things going on in the 1960s is there is this notion that criminals are a product of their environment, not as accountable for their decisions. That they havent gotten a High Education like we heard and miranda. Against that backdrop there is sort of a perverse interest in cheering for the underdog, that somehow police have outwitted suspects when they get them to confess. Thats why i think a strange backdrop to the decision. Mr. Rosen the notion of chief Justice Warren soft on crime is not convincing. This justice wrote terry v. O prolaw of the most enforcement decisions and history. What warren did care a lot about was Human Dignity. He uses the phrase in the decision he was troubled with the spano case that the guy may have been acting in selfdefense, but under roles was subjected to a prison sentence. The judge didnt ink the totality of the circumstances test was protective enough at a time when he was troubled by police of violence. He understood the third degree. He understood what was going on in the south. Guyfrom being an aclu stopping interrogations by requiring a lawyer at all times, i think he is trying to, what they water it, pragmatic compromise. My question is i want to go back before miranda rights were brought into play. The question is, what was the fbi rights and how did they present their rights to suspects beforeer and a miranda . They said they had the rights to remain silent and anything they said could be used against him. Those were the kind of rights given to miranda himself. But the fbi would say, once you go to court, that is when your rights to counsel apply. Anythingad never done like what was under discussion and we will talk about that in a minute, had never done anything that had its but he says they dont want to talk mother ei has doesnt want to talk, the fbi has to stop asking them russians. Them questions. This is celeste from tulsa. Hi, my question is how long did it take for this case to reach the Supreme Court . Before you go, tell me about your interest in this case as a middle school student. A social stev studies teacher brought it up and said we will get extra credit. Thank you for participating, congratulations. Get extraonderful to credit and you can tell your teacher that we know a crime occurred and 1963 and the case came down in 1966, so it took three years between the crime and decision. Is that a long time . No. Like goldilocks, just right here. Next up is glenn from michigan. My question is about does miranda apply to legal and illegal aliens. Im thinking about the case in San Bernardino where we lose the line between regular crime and terrorism. A legalthe lady was alien, if she had survived and they were looking at it as a terrorist case, would maranda have applied to her specifically, for example . It is a great question. I will let paul taken away, but the question is to what extent does miranda apply to suspects abroad, it is an open question. It has not been decided yet, my understanding is anyone in the United States would have to be read the miranda rights. Mr. Cassel jeff is exactly right on that. It extends rights to everyone inside the United States. Can have some interesting fbition about what is an agent is overseas and what comes into play. Interestingso have questions in Public Safety situations, if there was a ticking time bomb, the Supreme Court has said in those very mirandaircumstances, warnings may not be necessary. He asked if it applies to foreign combatants on u. S. Soil, the answer is it depends . Mr. Cassel it depends. In a military contacts it doesnt apply, but in a civilian context, miranda does apply. Host jimmy is in california. You are on. Caller thank you very much. I am a retired attorney and ive began law school and autumn of law and my criminal professor really did not like miranda. He was adamant about how dangerous it was for lease work. Just brought back that moran brings that morathat remembrance. Maybe you could say that the court has too many judges on it and not enough perhaps people outside of the Appellate Court ,nd Supreme Court clerk circuit i dont like the way it is going in recent years. Thank you. And he hadfred written the interrogation manuals with techniques. I think one of the reasons the professor was disappointed in the miranda decision is he discovered his tactics had been as as an needs it reason to need these protections. My understanding of the miranda decision is it doesnt restrict the techniques that he used, so he reworked his text book the next year. Book tol, what the best look at. Host two more questions and well come back to the decision. Caller good evening. Out thatnted to point the Supreme Court did not just rush to the exclusionary as their first attempt to curtail this sort of activity. There had been a whole series of up to it andding finally the court seemed to be convinced that the only way to get released to follow the rules they were laying down was to give them incentive to follow the law saying if you do this were not going to allow evidence to be used. I think that is an important factor here. A very important point, absolutely. Miranda is not coming out of nowhere, the exclusionary rule to the states arguably has as much or more practical importance to miranda itself. Brenda can be seen as a propolice decision. As paul said it didnt present the use of trickery or deception. In some ways it inoculated the allhere you had to do you had to do was say the magic words. We have now learned about their origin. The things all of that miranda didnt do or didnt require the videotaping of interrogations. It didnt prevent deception or trickery, for all of those reasons. The court definitely once a bright line rule, but not a role that disfavor they police. We continue the debate all of these years later and in fact it was a divided court. Decision. 4 is there a back story that we know of of how they got to a fiveor decision in this case a 54 decision in this case . The fbi practices those who are pushing for broad regulation of the police, said look, the fbi is already the problem was the fbi had not been doing anything like this sort of thing that miranda ended up imposing on every agency in the United States. Host we have heard about finding to bring them to our side, either been any cases that have convinced somebody to go to one side or another, or have there been anybody lined up on one side i know there was some debate about and the fbi warnings were included. I also know they have gone back to some of the drafts that were included. I know that there was a statement about limiting Police Interrogation, if we leave it to the state, maybe they will come up with other ways of limiting it. That kind of compromise, if you will, at least verbally alter chelated verbally articulated was critical to building a coalition. Aboutce we are talking the warnings, here is what the fbi said at the time. If any person being interviewed decide they want to consult with counsel, the interview is terminated. The best way to understand the miranda decision itself, go to the National Constitution Center Interactive Constitution and you will see paul casale and kate smith with a beautiful comment statement about what miranda means. Constitutioncenter. Org. You can read the death amendment the fifth amendment on this side and you see this comment statement where smithsors casesel; and you have separate statements about what you disagree with, that is a great way for people to understand how to begin the decision. The chief justice to write the opinion himself, it was 60plus pages and he read it aloud in the courtroom your often does that happen . That often. Certainly not with 60plus pages. I think everybody knew when the decision came down it was a landmark decision and would have reverberations that would echo for years. And in fact, miranda rules were in were written into the decision. Here is a bit of chief justice earl warrens decision say get the flavor of it. Person is tot if a be subjected to interrogation, he must first be informed that he has the right to remain silent, for those unaware of the , the warning is needed simply to make them aware of it the threshold requirement for an intelligent decision as to its exercise the fifth amendment privilege is so fundamental to our system of constitutional to inquireot pause an individual case is whether the defendant was aware of his rights without a warning being given. Ofthere have been a lot commentators who have read the decision and say it reads like a legislative report with an attached attitude and by the way, it handles a couple of the cases. There is a truly legislative feel that stands at odds with most of the decisions coming out of the Supreme Court today. Think you can think they decision was true to the sixth of the fifth and amendment, but agree that it does have a legislative quality. War and said this is what the rules are, to repeat, these are the rules that we want the cops to read. They had been taken from the fbi and other sources, but had not reversely been part of state criminal law. Ced it led to fier criticism. Before we get to the aftermath of it, we should tell the rest of the miranda story. What happened next . He just won this landmark case, what happens legally . In 1972. Paroled he is arrested in 1974 for parole violations. He goes back to prison. He is released, goes back to the old neighborhood. He sells maranda cards and that is the way he makes his living in a poignant moment. In 1976, he is playing poker in a bar where he is fatally with a knife. And his pocket, miranda cards with the warnings. Host he also tried to appeal his conviction and was not successful, right . Becauses reconvicted of a confession he made to his wife of all people is admitted. His commonlaw wife, the rules of spousal privilege did not block that confession. I think it is important to understand that the only thing he was convicted of is giving a confession the only reason he was convicted is because he gave a confession. Host here is an interesting coda, killed in a bar fight with cards in his pocket, and his killers are read the miranda rules. Yes. Host we have carroll cooley, the arresting officer in the case adding more to the story. Lets listen. Carroll after the Supreme Court decision, the various departments around the state and country developed their own miranda warning cards used upon the decision and the cards that we have here are the original sign that we had miranda as a souvenir after he got out of prison. And then we had the revised cards. The one in english and the one in spanish on the back. The revised cards did not require a signature. Cardsa used to get these from Police Officers that he would see in the downtown area. And he would introduce himself as the famous ernesto miranda. And then he would ask officers if they had any spare cards. And they would freely give him them and would sign try to sell them for a dollar or two. Host there is the arresting officers story of the person who gave his name to the miranda rights. Im going to go back to calls and get more comments and reaction. Next up is john from west chester, pennsylvania. My understanding is you can only invoke your right to have a lawyer present when you are being interrogated. Can you please clarify at what point you are being and their gated and if that can happen only in a police asian you are being interrogated and if it can only happen in a Police Station or other places . My students were taken their criminal procedure exam this morning. The miranda warnings are triggered when a person is taken into custody. They do not apply when someone is being questioned in their home. Another point is interrogation, the Police Officers have to be asking westerns or the functional equivalent of asking westerns in order to bring the rules into play. Brad next is a call from from hot springs, california. I was detained for a dui dutyand the officer on gave me the field test, i passed that. He wanted 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 them. E market saying i refused it. Was detained at what point was he supposed to read them . Be readont have to your miranda rights to have a blood test, because courts have held that blood is not testimonial here at it is physical evidence. Theay remember that from clinton impeachment investigation you saw the president in the white house getting blood taken. He had no right to refuse it because of the Courts Holding that it is not testimony. The thing i remember most from law class is the teacher jumping up and down. Elling blood, blood, blood it seems very dramatic that police are allowed to extract blood from you without your. Ntent next is laura from philadelphia. You are on the air. Caller this goes back to something that professor cassel said a while ago, if i understand correctly, it sounds giving the third degree was a lot worse than now, hasnt ,here been a lot of information my understanding it hasnt improved at all. One of the interesting things is overproduction of some people and under protection of others. It over protects professional criminals because they lawyer up , ask for an attorney, and the no questions can be asked. On the other hand, if you are innocent, what is the first thing you do . Always my rights, where is the form i will wave my rights, where is the form . There have been reports of individuals. Miranda doesnt do anything for innocent people. Something like videotaping might do good for innocent people, but miranda has been a disappointment for preventing things like false confessions. Host i dont know if you can answer this hypothetical. A journalist is watching and he s what if beearl warren would not chief justice, on the other hand, we have a moderate republican president who is appointed aht have moderate like warren. As areat achievement statesman we talked in the brown case how he is able to bring colleagues together. It was a practical politician from the Republican Party that was not especially much tougher ,n crime then democrats were was able to come up with this ruling. I think my although there was no one like earl warren, you can ine host steve in some bright, tennessee. Questions,ave two one, is there a statute of limitations on one somebody can file an appeal when they feel that they are that their miranda rights have been violated . I was involved in something at 19 years old and i was ready well horse into signing a confession, not physically, but mentally. I have tried several times to get court papers, everything else. Nobody was giving them to me. Is there a way to do it and if so, how would i go about doing it . The things the Supreme Court has said since miranda is the issues have to be raised immediately at the time of trial, you cannot raise them later on. It becomes to collateral on a habeas corpus petition. The Supreme Court anticipated and its decision that there would be a flood of appeals that had been tried before. Down, itput a marker le,the june 13 ru affecting all cases Going Forward and not allowing appeals before. That to me was confusing, because if it is a right, it is a right, not one set by time. There were appeals and process before then, and so they were truly cases of murderers, one case in new york where somebody had knifed four or five people. That confession which was valid when the police obtained it, because they didnt have miranda was thrown out. Theres a book that says whatever you think about the miranda rule, the idea to throw out confessions before the role was inflicted was bloody murderers literally walked free. The court is a pragmatic institution, there are other decisions that are not retroactive. Remember the great advocate for begged the court not to make it retroactive. Will go to the Phoenix Police detective talking about the impact on him, his fellow officers, and what they thought about it. Lets listen. They thought the police had abused these individuals and taken advantage of them. And therefore, the police were bad guys in the minds of a lot of people. Those people that knew the facts didnt see it that way, but you have to look at the general public. So, there was an impact on me that i felt like i had been put in an awkward position, that i had been somewhat demeaned because people thought that we had abused him. It was the most friendly conversation you could ever have. We sat down from and it was like talking to an old friend. We did everything according to the book in my opinion and i was very surprised i thought, well, when i first heard it i thought it was going in front of the Supreme Court. I didnt know about the state Supreme Court already hearing it and having upheld it here at i think we did a good job in my opinion. The fact that it turned out different than i thought it would, as a police officer, i accept those things. If thats all they want us to do business, that is the way well will do business. All i could do was say i think the Supreme Court made a mistake. That is what i thought. 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 into society to continue to do their evil. , it is no skin off my nose when these people go back to work, we would just try to catch them again. Carroll cooley, the arresting officer in the case of ernesto miranda. Another personal story on the thee, and this is possibly democrat of vermont senator, this senior democrat on the committee, and at the time brenda came around he was in vermont in the states attorneys office. He tells us the story about the miranda decision and its affect. At that time it was there a controversial. With a read this guilty accused we have here the former attorney general once used the expression the guilty accused. They said what you mean we have to tell them their rights, i said up worst to do. I said what if you were arrested for something, if you think they have the wrong guy, wouldnt you want to know what your rights are. That sunk in pretty heavily. Host he went on to tell us that he had cards printed up with the miranda rights on them and pass them out to Police Officers in the state as is what as he was educating them. Let me put one on the table, this is wild and wonderful ep West Virginia law who says police found a married of tactics bidding brenda evading miranda. I have done a lot of research on the effects of miranda and you see a staggering effect of Law Enforcement on this country. Before maranda, if you go back to the start of the 1960s, you are looking at a 60 crime clearance rates in a country. In 1960 6, 19 six to, 1968, you see a dramatic reduction in crime clearance rates. They have remained in their sense. That means about 60,000 Violent Crimes and more than 100,000 property crimes each year go unsolved. As i say, it is not just reading the words off of the card. If her bids police from asking questions if somebody refuses to allow questioning to occur. That is the blow. It handcuffed the cops. Important this is an and. Debate. Empiracalortant debate. Opinions, someone notes that the current prevailing view is brand us impact mirandas impact is negligible. Studies conducted revealed that 55 to 65 of interrogations, please succeed in getting interrogations. We can go back and forth. Is the expertel and not i, but i endorsed the view that after having resisted maranda strongly, the police in the 1980s and 1990s icame to accept miranda. All you have to do is say the magic words and then you can resort to the same trickery and course of pressures that allow ple coworse if coercive tactics. Unless you believe in divine absolution, it is not a good idea to confess it you are guilty, but miranda made it used here to a not sleep themselves against challenges your i think a prevailing view among Law Enforcement officers is that miranda is not bad for the police. Host we talked about this before, in addition to miranda of policing suite related decisions that the war in court took on including griffin versus illinois, matt versus ohio, which we told two versus ohio,mapp and gideon v. Wainwright. The Building Block for maranda said you have to have a lawyer. Versus ohio is the socalled stop and frisk case, allowing officers to stop somebody and frisk them. Host we talked about this controversy. A 54 the court was decision. Congress also got into the act in past the omnibus safe streets act. They were outraged by the miranda decision because criminals were going rate and there was expected to have a dramatic effect on Law Enforcement. Congress passed the law reestablishing the voluntariness test in federal court, because that is all the jurisdiction that congress has. Host 20 minutes left and i want to talk about what has happened to maranda in the years ensuing. What was refined . I mean the most important one is can we talk about that . This is the dickerson case, and in cassel had a crucial role it, so i will allow him to tee it up. It said the court should reinstate the and admit confessions if they were voluntary defined by factors as in the time elapsed in, whether he was advised of rights or not, but what is significant is that not a signal administration a Single Administration defended nofrom johnson through bush, president s insisted that it used as the substitute forme for maranda. After decades of criticizing miranda, chief Justice Rehnquist opposed it acting not against the wishes of subsequent white houses, but also in conjunction with them. Host this was the year 2000 and rehnquist, bras eyer the judge was asked to give an argument that miranda should be overruled your tell us your perspective. I argued in defense. There is a history that jeff is referring to. Certainly, president johnson said a were not going to enforce it should be argued in court. I ended up arguing it as a friend of the court. One of the things that happened was the Clinton Administration refused to defend the law even though there were very strong arguments that could be made on its behalf. Unfortunateof the things. Have things might have come out differently. Heres a bit of what chief Justice Rehnquist wrote, rid of being a constitutional decision may not be in effect over congress your we decline to overrule miranda itself. The role that it governs the admissibility of statements in state and federal courts. It is a remarkable decision. Both the associate justice and chief have repeatedly said that miranda is not a constitutional decision. He shocked everyone by upholding it. Why did he do this . One thing he says is that miranda has come to be accepted by the culture. S hadcauses Justice Scalia to nearly explode. Converted miranda the king that was so arrogant he believed he could build a pyramid to heaven and killed a lot of people doing it. He had been a lone ranger and a little bit here and his constitutional views, but i think he was moved as all of the other justices were. We saw that this symbolizes Law Enforcement across the world thanks to acceptance in Popular Culture and that combined with the fact that the other justices ought the cops thought the cops had accepted it. 72 rejected it. Host pete from georgia, you are on the air. Theer my question is about salinas versus texas case in was sayingwhat about the weaknesses in miranda were on full display in that case where we see a very divided. Ourt trial i think the upshot of the case was that you have to explicitly invoke your right to silence,. Ou cannot just a silent but that assumes you know the rights and know you are in custody. Police can to get away from you, but they dont necessarily have to give you the cue. Can you when i case and do you think it was rightly decided . I think one of the things remarkable about miranda was this case was decided almost 50 years after that and the basic tenets apply today. I view that a little differently than what jeff said. Some people look at the dickerson decision and say that was a bullet that was dodged. I view it person i view dickerson and others as an it we haventssed looked at emerging Technology Like videotaping. If i am an innocent person questioned by a police officer, i would much rather have a videotape running during interrogations of the entire process can be reconstructed later. The only thing i get is an officer reading words off of a card and making me sign a wa iver form. Not onlytime protect suspects better, but give Law Enforcement the ability to ask questions. My question is keen on having Police Officers ask more questions and my question is, does he believe that the police and should keep on asking questions when the suspect says i dont want to talk . Miranda says the police have to stop asking questions at that point. Do they believe that that should not exist . We ought to be doing is changing the maranda rules so they dont have these hard and fast question cut off roles here to i call this the policemay i rule of questioning. If they have to give a warning and a waiver if somebody says i answerant to questions, they can even ask reasonable questions for a reasonable period of time. I would allow them to ask questions so long as they want a as long as they are not extracting and illegal confession. Body cams and iphones are transforming interaction between cops and civilians. The committee is trying to, with roles for body cams. There are plenty of people who agree that videotaping would help police and the suspects, but that doesnt necessarily mean that miranda should be thrown out as well. There is also no doubt as paul said and the previous caller dissenters in cases like the salinas case and also the thompkins case from 2010, a suspect doesnt invoke miranda rights and the court says that eds rights because he failed to do so unambiguously, the courtsenters say is cutting back on miranda. It remains hotly contested today. Host on twitter, could you please comment on the comptons decision the thompkins decision of 2010. They must tell police that they want a lawyer and that they want to remain silent, affirmative action. It is a unique situation for 90omebody sits quiet minutes and ends up making a statement. Coverkinds of decisions those particular fact patterns, but in daytoday Law Enforcement, we do not see any real change in police of effectiveness. That is not just my view. Bi data,ook at thf sadly police in America Today are less effective in clearing or solving crimes than they were before the war and court start handing down its decision. Mr. Rosen quickly two views, the aclu criticized the court in thompkins in the new flexible he would ease the burden on military police and flexible response and terrorism to these crimes. My concern is shifts in american Law Enforcement policy. The the implementation of exclusionary rule, im wondering if it is the court itself that shifts lawenforcement policy to a professional level or put opinion and social turbulence, especially in the south in the 1960s that had the biggest impact. Guest that is a superb question. You know whose book i would love you to read . Of of the great scholars criminal procedure. He wrote a book about the relationship between Public Opinion and criminal procedure. Its that they tend to mirror society rather than cause them. The court became more liberal when it went up in the 70s and became more conservative and vice versa. The notion that the court transform society doesnt seem right. The criminal procedure revolution was called a revolution for a reason. It did change the rules police operated under in a significant way. On twitter asks did maranda work most people waive their rights in hope of gaming the system and controlling the Police Interrogation. We have seven minutes in our program and one more in our 12 part series. We have a very robust website in partnership with the National Constitution center and lots of background on these cases. That videohit visiting historic sites. You can buy a book we have copublished. A veteranten by Supreme Court reporter. You can get a link. We will get it to you before the holidays. It gives you background as a legacy of all the cases featured in this series. A couple more calls and then we will wrap this up. Next of the spam in irving texas. Question. D to ask the you think everything we are facing now in this more modern i dont know what you would want to call it, the 50 years it has been in do you think it is updating or changing in some way . If fears of terrorism are increasing and people want the government to be tough front crime the court may mirror that. I think its unlikely the court would hold we are having a huge debate as we have been discussing about Police Brutality, about the treatment of africanamerican muchens and that is very the opposite direction with a new sensitivity to the importance of Human Dignity. It makes it much harder for the police to engage. I dont think maranda will be going away anytime soon. There is no consequence for wrongful police content and what will be displayed at the exclusionary rule is necessary. Is an involuntary confession that should be admitted. Maranda puts in place a series of highly technical procedural rules which sends out good confessions. That i think is the real problem. We talk about Human Dignity. We now have a much more robust movement. Nobody has ever told the story of patricia, who was raped by maranda. I think thats a change for the does the Supreme Court of it taken macro view of the legal system for selfassessment . Results focused both good and bad . U. S. Incarceration rate i believe is the highest in the world. Consideration how they go about their business. At least they are channeling it somehow. Things. L sense of what is striking is how on empirical many of these decisions are. Theres not a lot of engagement with Law Enforcement officials. And for all those reasons one of the most interesting work in policing nowadays is being done not in the courts and constitutional decisions and regulations of Police Department passed by states. Every state is grappling with questions of body question that body cameras. I think they may agree that for legislatures to grab this and come up at their own detailed rules is appropriate and its good to focus. Rulesthere are different it petrified the law of Police Interrogation. Theyre the same as they were in 1956. We regulate Police Interrogation. At the same time provide protections for suspects. Said this is a constitutional right and made those kind of accommodation changes and reform effort. We are going to wrap this up i listen to errol warrens grandson, who shares with us a family history, his grandfathers view of what the miranda decision and other decisions did for society. I would like the court throughout its history to be remembered as the court of the people. No one can say how the opinions or anyparticular court particular era will stand the all one can do is do his best to make his opinions conform to the constitution. They would be considered in the future. This is lenders that i have 1969 he decided to resign and i had written a very passionate kids like weather. He writes back to me. A couple of sections. The world is in because human nature isnt perfect. Law if all of these laws were obeyed they would be stalled or at least they would be in manageable shape or solutions. Consideration into human beings underlying nature. We dont want to burn every thing down because the result will be in the underlines anarchy. Government and institutions are struck down. They are replaced by autocracies. And who suffers most of the most under them, the minorities of course. Know i have not resolved any of your perplexities. The young people of today, i believe they can and will bring to bear the strength of their idealism. Or ignored by former generations and particularly by my home. Last word on what was discussed tonight. Illustratesaranda its an example of politicizing the courts. We have confirmation battles and the sort of thing we have seen playing out over the decades. What a great name and i love god bless america. Is hisat shows fundamental concern of translating the volumes the values into the modern age, not concerned about exerting psychological pressure on heretics, not to confess by being beaten but by having there will buy psychological pressure. He ends by quoting my hero about is the omnint potent teacher. He felt the court had to be a shining and blend the shining emblem for what dignity means. Time will affect decisions. You are suggesting it is time for us in society to rethink these based on technology . I think maranda could be updated and more effective. I think it would be an effort. There are a lot of people thinking about this. Hopefully we can all come together. Other things would update maranda. Us. Hank you for being with the miranda case and the overall policing in america and as always thank you so much for being in our audience tonight for your Great Questions and comments. Nextark aces returns february on cspan. Join us to hear more stories of the people who sparked Ground Breaking cases. And lawyers who were key to the Supreme Courts review. The social and legal response to the issues that black men to lock us up, put us in cages, the treatise as citizens. We are not full citizens of the United States. Law School Professor paul butler takes a critical look. And its impact on american men and chuckled. There is never been a time where Community Relations has been anywhere near good. We will call to report a crime if you are the victim and the police didnt pay much attention to it. But not to protect those communities but to rather lock folks up. A College Professor paul ken discusses the cold war relationship between president Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul ii. He is author of a pope and president john paul to, Ronald Reagan and the extraordinary untold story of the 20th century. The institute of World Politics hosted this 90 minute event. Hello ladies and gentlemen. Best he will be blessed as he talks about god and Ronald Reagan. For some Ronald Reagan was god with a g. There is no better person to pontificate about reagan, his faith, and the roman pontiff then pope canker