Period 2 AP Gov podcast - Cole/Jack

Miranda v. Arizona was a landmark case that established important rights for the accused. It was not an isolated case, as there were three other cases that dealt with similar issues. The first case, California v. Stewart, involved a suspect who was interrogated without being informed of his rights. The Supreme Court agreed that the suspect should have been informed of his rights. In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment protects individuals from self-incrimination and that confessions made without knowledge of these rights could not be used in court. The ruling also emphasized the right to an attorney. Miranda, the defendant in the case, was ultimately convicted based on a confession that was later deemed inadmissible. However, he faced further charges and was sentenced to prison. The ruling in Miranda v. Arizona is important for anyone who may be arrested or detained, as it establishes the right to counsel and the right to remain silent. There are three If you state the demand at any time before you made your statement, you are allowed to answer, too. Anything you said would be held against him. Answer no, sir. The idea of a suspect not being read their rights while being detained by the police seems like a faraway fantasy to many today. Police officers are supposed to protect all citizens, so why weren't they? We are the defenders of the Constitution, and this is Miranda v. Arizona. The defenders of the Constitution. So what exactly brought Miranda v. Arizona into the eyes of the Supreme Court? So, Miranda v. Arizona wasn't an isolated case in history. The Supreme Court had their eyes on these rights for a long time, and there were actually three other large cases that had already passed with rulings about the rights given to the people in interrogation. So, exactly what were these cases, and were the rulings similar? So, the first large case that covered this was California v. Stewart. It was a serial purse snatcher who accidentally killed one of the victims. Stewart was interrogated nine times over five days without being told any of his rights, before confessing that he had robbed the victim, but had not meant to hurt them. Stewart was, of course, convicted. However, the Supreme Court of California reversed this, stating that he should have been told his rights. So, the Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona actually agreed with them, but did they ever step in immediately and shut down California's ruling in favor of their own? So, the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction here. Like, they agreed with what they ruled, but they couldn't step in and verify or shut down California's ruling. So, they just had to find a case that was already open that was brought to them directly. And that was because it hadn't been appealed to them yet, correct? Yeah, no. So, just based on the path that the Supreme Court had to take, it had to be appealed to them. And the Supreme Court of Arizona had already declared it, and no one cared to appeal it. So, for the other two cases, did the courts make a similar holding as this California v. Stewart case? Actually, no. Both of the cases held that the interrogations were lawful, even though the police didn't have an attorney present or give them the knowledge that they had the right to remain silent. And this is what really set the stage for Miranda v. Arizona. Fascinating. So, who was Miranda, and what did they do? What case did he have against Arizona? So, actually, his full name was Ernesto Miranda. Ernesto was born on March 9, 1941, in Mesa, Arizona. He was a Hispanic laborer in Phoenix during the 60s when he was charged and convicted for the robbery in June 1963. And the following day, his trial actually began for another charge, which was the kidnapping and rape of Louis Ann Jamieson. So, Miranda kidnapped Jamieson by shoving her into his car before driving her out to the desert and raping her. After Jamieson found her way back into the city, she described the car that kidnapped her, and that was later traced back to Miranda. And then, when Miranda was arrested, he was interrogated for over two hours, which afterwards he signed a written confession admitting to the crimes. But because he was never informed of his rights, that confession couldn't be used, right? Actually, it was used, and Miranda was sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison using that written confession. But Miranda's lawyer appealed the case, actually fighting for his Sixth Amendment, the right to a counsel. But I thought this was a case about the Fifth Amendment, not the Sixth. It should have been, and the ruling was made by the Supreme Court over the Fifth Amendment. But let me introduce our speaker to speak more on this, the Honorable Judge Nichols. Thank you, Cole. So, actually, Miranda v. Arizona set precedents for the treatment of the Fifth and Sixth Amendment. Originally, Miranda's lawyers were only seeking a ruling over the Sixth Amendment. However, the Supreme Court in this case was concerned with the greater scope of rights of the accused, and whether or not a confession given without the knowledge of a defendant's rights to remain silent and the right to an attorney was lawful. So, despite the case that was brought before them only concerning constitutionally against the Sixth Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled for both the Fifth and the Sixth? Correct. During the Supreme Court hearing, the Court held a 5-4 vote in favor of Miranda, stating that there can be no doubt that the Fifth Amendment privilege is available outside of criminal court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings in which the freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way from being compelled to incriminate themselves. Which means that the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendants unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. Awesome. Thank you. That makes sense. Thank you so much for coming out to talk with us today. Of course. Anytime. So, the dissenting opinion was given by Justice White as well, and he argued that the Fifth Amendment only forbids suspects to incriminate themselves if they're compelled. So if he's just given a constitution after being interrogated, that's not the same as them saying, either you confess or XYZ is going to happen to you. But in reality, this dissenting opinion actually doesn't matter at all because a dissenting opinion on a Supreme Court case actually holds no legal weight or legal standing. This is just another argument that was made for the opposite side. So now that we know what the ruling was and how the precedent was set, what actually happened to Miranda after the case? So, Miranda was a horrible person, and as soon as he knew he was free, he called his girlfriend and was threatening her. What? That's a total douchebag move. He finally got out of jail and decided, eh, I don't want to go back to jail. What a nutcase. Right? So anyways, she instead goes to the police and tells them of a separate confession he gave directly to her. He is once again arrested, retried, and sent to jail for another 20 to 30 years. He served 11 of those before being granted parole, and then in 1976 he was stabbed to death in Phoenix by a man who then fled to Mexico and has never been found. Wow, that's crazy. So, Miranda, horrible guy, obviously, you know. Time to deserve what we got. But what happened with his life and that case is really important for a lot of people, including you and me if we ever get into this situation. So, why is that? So, it's actually not going to be important for you if you're just driving around doing normal civilian things. But if you're ever arrested or get in trouble, whether you did it or not, this case applies directly to you because it establishes your right to counsel and your right to not be interrogated without knowing the right, that you have the right to remain silent. So, if you're ever arrested, having your Miranda rights read, as people call them nowadays, is one of the most crucial parts of that. Yeah, so it's really important, but it's also important to know that they don't always have to read you those rights, and you can't just sue them if they don't in three situations. There's three exceptions. The first is if there's an active threat to public safety, say you're a terrorist and there's a bomb and you know where it is, but you are being interrogated for it, they don't have to tell you about your rights. Another is if there is a victim that is about to die and they're trying to figure out how to save them, and you know how, but you're not telling them, they don't have the time to read you your rights, and so they're not going to. And then the third and final exception is actually if you consent to go to the police station. So, if you're not actively being detained, but you go down and talk with them of your own free will, they don't have to read you your rights. So, if you're trying not to get convicted, don't go to the police station willingly. Make them detain you. Yep. And so this is a really landmark case. It's one of the first of its kind to approach the Supreme Court, and it really set a precedent on what your rights are as an accused and what the values you have as the accused to have a lawyer to know that you can be quiet. And overall, it's important for everyone to know that this case reflects on them whether they're arrested or not or detained in general. Yeah. So, it's got this whole implication of you, and the idea of establishing these rights in the Constitution that made it such a landmark case have always been important, and that's why it takes so much time. Thank you all for tuning in to this week's episode. of Miranda v. Arizona. And get ready next week for Monroe v. AP Government period 2. Thank you, guys.