tv Landmark Cases Landmark Cases Series - Miranda v. Arizona CSPAN July 5, 2021 12:40am-1:43am EDT
the human story and constitutional dramas between 12 historic supreme court decisions. >> ernest miranda versus arizona. >> we hear arguments number 18. >> quite often in our famous decisions are ones that the court took. that were quite unpopular. >> let us 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 helped stick together because they believe in a rule of norms. >> welcome to the landmark cases. here is case 11 out of 12. this is the 1966 case aranda versus arizona that
revolutionized policing in america. >> your honor, you have -- you are under arrest. anything you say to us can be used against you in a case of law. >> do you know about the miranda rights? >> are you sure you understand your rights? >> yes, yes. he explained to me just like on tv. >> right to remain silent. >> talk to my lawyer. >> anything you say can be used against you. >> you have the right to remain silent. >> it can and will be used against you in a court of law. you have the right to speak to an attorney. >> as you can see, they became part of our national culture. we will learn the story from our
two guests. >> he returns to the table tonight. for you regular viewers, they are partners in the series. he hit -- he is a supreme court expert. thank you for being back. >> is with us for the first time and we are glad to have you. former judge of utah from 2000-2007. also served as a deputy attorney general and he is now the -- professor at university of utah law school. what other cans to issues are in the miranda case? >> it tries to settle a question around the country for several hundred years. how much pressure can police officers put on a suspect when trying to get information from them. what sorts of rules will be used in court? >> so many of the amendments
concerned criminal rights. what is it about this case that made it a landmark? >> it transformed the culture. look at all the tv shows that gave miranda rights. oust trying to see if i can do it by heart. you have the right to remain silent. anything you say can and will be used against you. you have the right to consult with a attorney and if you cannot afford one it will be afforded to you. it is so ingrained in the culture. he said his unit in your opening that the case is accepted by the culture. how many cases can we say about that? >> before we can get into that story, how can a discussion about 1940's-60's policing in this country. we were talking about a big debate on policing tactics and one evolved from the 60's. why is that? >> i think what happened was we saw already significant improvement in police --
policing in this country. in the 1930's, the third degree putting pressures trying to get confessions was a widespread tactic. as you move forward in time, i think those tactics and started to disappear. the question was this won't be used in the form of physical form, they will use psychological tactics and techniques to get confessions. what kind of regulation should there be on those techniques. that was the issue miranda had to wrestle with. >> when looking at the country in that time, or the regional aspect to this? were their cases after jim crow that might have had more problems with prosecutions? or was his uniform? >> there's a huge debate on police brutality and it focuses on the south. as he said, and the 1930's, the court had a broad standard that confessions had to be voluntary.
you cannot beat it out of them. it is 19 61. the civil-rights commissions a report of widespread police brutality and are still a debate on how much that is still going on. in the face of this, there is a criminal procedure. it enforces the decision 1961 applying the exclusionary rule to the space. 1963, it says you have to have a lawyer present during police until get -- interrogation. so you had to have a court appointed lawyer. the supreme court led by earl warren is using the fourth and fifth amendment to address what it perceives to be a real problem with police brutality in the south that is the background all of which this case is decided. >> will spend more time on the war on court right let's focus on mr. miranda's story. who is he? >> you got a look at not only him but his relatives.
we can talk a little bit about them shortly. miranda was a repeat criminal who had been arrested, convicted and sentenced a number of times. i think it is fair to say he was a drifter who did not have any established employment or anything to work. on the night in question, he abducted and raped a woman. that is the backdrop that is here. just talking about the court revolution. the other thing going on simultaneously with aranda coming this crime is it is skyrocketing in the 60's. it is responsible for them. that is part of the backdrop two. >> she her name was patricia, 18 years old and leaving the movie theater. on the way home, she was kidnapped, raped, and then driven back to her house. we have eight siri -- serious accusation.
how will this be preceded -- received from here? >> there is another robbery the following week. witnesses see a car that seems to belong to miranda at a bus stop. police check out the car. they go to the place were he is living. speak with his girlfriend and she essentially fingers him. he is taken to the station. there is a dispute on whether or not he is told he is right. some states did it and some others did not. fbi red rights at the time but essentially, he signs the confession saying that he did it. he is then convicted. he claims he was never read his rights and that's when the case began. >> we have visited the phoenix police department and what makes this really interesting is that the detective who arrested him is still with us. he is still what the police department. he gave us a tour because this is very much part of the police
department and national history. they have a display there. he tells a story from the phoenix police department's point of view. >> when she looked at the lineup, she said it looked like the number one guy. number one guy was bernie miranda. i asked her are you sure? she says it looks like him, maybe if i heard his voice i might be able to make a positive . i did not say anything. i waited for a while. i wasn't quite sure what i would say. bernie asked me how did i do? i said you didn't do so good. >> >> i bless -- i better tell you about it. he told us about the kidnapping, rape, and robbery. after he told us, i said would you sign a written confession which says at the beginning of the report form i did 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. the spelling was excellent. the description of the act was accurate. this is the entrance into the old city jail on the fifth house of the courthouse and building. he would've been brought in here and he would have been processed just like every other prisoner. he would have been searched and he would have been transported or taken over, shown his news -- new quarter. good for identical tanks. this particular one is where he was kept. it would be called the felony tank.
he would have been booked into here. he would've spent a week and may have been a couple of days. >> you teach procedures. what is it about this that led the system to get interested? >> it is the perfect test case. this is someone -- a case for somebody was beaten to get a confession. they use some tricks. they say that he was identified. it presents the issue of psychological pressure there in a way that the confession should not be used. one of the other interesting things we will see is miranda and's up radically changing the rules. in 1963 when this took place, there was not a single precedent in america that would support that kind of confession now.
those kinds of statements have been admitted in court. i think that is with the chief justice worn and others got interested. >> he had two trials. what happened to him? >> he was challenged on sixth amendment grounds because they said to have a right to counsel during interrogations. >> he was convicted and sentenced to 25 years on the robbery and in the kidnapping rape. and then we go to the challenge. >> the appellate court and they all reject the claim that the confession was improperly procured. they said he was informed of his
legal rights. the only question was if they were in violation of the sixth amendment. they said may be at miscible -- admissible. >> the moment says what? >> that you have the right to effective assistance of counsel and the argument that the lawyers are making is that when he was speaking to the detective, he didn't have a lawyer then and he should have had a lawyer at that point. the problem with that argument is that for 170 years of american history, you get a lawyer once you go to court. the fifth amendment says you have the right not to be compelled to be a witness against you. witnessing occurs in court, so under the precedents that existed, this is not the problem at all. to use the confession of ernesto miranda. and that is why the lawyers are
trying to get to the supreme court. susan: we keep trying to explain how the process works. so he did not have his appeal upheld in the arizona supreme court. how did it make its way to the federal supreme court? >> you have to file a petition. the supreme court has to agree to take the case. just a few years earlier there , was a dramatic, related case called the gideon case. there is a wonderful book called gideon's trumpet that everyone should read if they haven't yet. gideon is the defendant and says i was wrongly convicted because i didn't have a lawyer for my defense and the court, overturning the previous role, says -- rule, says you are entitled to counsel. they brought in a lawyer call john frank who clerked for justice lack and was a yale law professor. distinguished constitutional scholar. and they brought in john flannery, who could argue very well.
once you get the big guns like that, the supreme court gets interested. susan: john flannery served as counsel for anita hill. in the clarence thomas confirmation hearings. >> very distinguished lawyer. miranda goes from someone in the bowels of the interrogation room to someone who now has the most high-powered legal teams imaginal -- imaginable before the supreme court. susan: we have this tweet. comments about that? >> the question is what kind of liberty we should uphold. for 170 years, there was no rule that the statement of the type maranda was making would be inadmissible in court. if you go around the world
today, it's hard to find a country that would exclude the kind of statements that aranda gave. it's important to protect the liberty of all persons, even those accused of crimes. the problem with miranda, frankly, is it just goes so far, the pendulum swings so far in the direction of protecting the accused that the women who are attacked are given short shrift. >> i should add that the chief -- chief justice warren disagrees. since the turn-of-the-century -- we can certainly have a good discussion about how they used the fifth and sixth amendments, and we could talk about the history of the fifth amendment. but it is not true that warren was making this up out of thin air. >> the problem with miranda is that it isn't just reading a few words off a card.
you have a right to remain silent, like you see on tv programs. the problem is what i would call the exclusionary aspects. it sets up rules that say you cannot question certain people. if you do certain things, evidence can't be used. it's all of the procedural apparatus associated with miranda that frankly, today means tens of thousands of criminal cases are going unsolved every year because of procedural requirements. susan we will get back to that : later on when we talk about the consequences of this and other decisions by the warren court. first i want to talk about the warren court. the last case we did in this series was from 1962, and a couple of new justices have been appointed to the court since then. how does the dynamic of the court change with these new additions? >> fortis had literally been appointed by the warren court to represent gideon. so he is acutely interested in criminal procedure. he is an lbj supporter. he got in trouble when lbj
nominated him to be chief justice advising lbj on certain matters. but he is very committed to the warren court. byron white, not so much. he was deferential to congress, pro-law enforcement, and he is in dissent in miranda. there was a balance on both sides. essentially, the most striking thing about the warren court is look at all the former judges and politicians on this court. hugo black, a former police court judge in alabama, saw the third degree firsthand. there is another great biography your viewers have to see, called -- it's a great biography of hugo black that describes how as a lawyer he is trying and hispanic defendant, and he brings the defendant up and
closes the shades so that the defendant looks kind of menacing. he says i just want the jury to take a look at that man. later, he regrets that tactic. he saw how the system could be abused. tom clark, a former politician as well, and most important, of course, we have to talk about earl warren who was the district attorney. he has prosecuted these people. he was acutely sensitive in a previous case that was about how defendants can be sentenced for a huge amount of time because of procedural factors beyond their control. these are not ivy tower judges. they are practical politicians who understand how the system works. susan: he was attorney general of the state of california and
served three terms as lieutenant governor. 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 time. frankly, in my view, and in many others, they had not successfully made the transition from politician to have their own views, impose those use, and pass legislation. now, shifting into a judicial role where their duty is to interpret the law, not make the law, when they see something about a police interrogation, politicians can pass laws and regulations and do different things, and five judges on the court were ready to do the same thing through supreme court decision making. that is one of the legacies of the warren.
the decision-making approach, not to look at the narrow facts of the case, but to throw out some rules that the country had to follow. susan: you have used the expression the third degree. where does that come from? >> the third degree has to do with beating. you take it one degree, then one more. jeffrey: in the context of this case, the third degree means a kind of coercive pressure that does not involve physical violence. there is a history here and it is fascinating. we have to tell this story because the court tells it in the miranda decision. this is the story of john loebern. during the british star chamber, if you were a heretic, you could be summoned before the star chamber and forced to take an oath in which you promise to truthfully answer any question, even if you did not know what it would be. if you are a dissenter and asked if you were a protestant, you could lie and go to eternal
damnation, as was the you -- the view at the time, you could tell the truth and be burned as a heretic. or you can refuse to answer nv in contempt. so the dissenter said no man is bound to accuse himself. that principle is a form of the third degree that if you are called before a body and require to answer questions that no person who has human dignity should be forced to answer is what the court is trying to channel. the beatings of the 1930's which were permissible under the old standards, and now the court is trying to take this. -- this puritan era history and say how can we honor the words of the fifth amendment today?
susan: we have a video of chief justice earl warren talking about the third degree. let's watch. chief justice warren: the third degree was a common thing 50 years ago. one had to watch for it very carefully to see that it was not committed. i think comparatively few law enforcement officers are addicted to the third degree and it's because the courts have abhorred that kind of conduct and have said if that kind of conduct is indulged in by the police, that a man is not given a fair trial, and therefore his conviction cannot stand. certainly, that is in the interest out of the particular defendant alone, but in the interest of everyone. susan what would you say about
: this? paul: when you talk about the third degree, i think chief justice warren hit the nail on the head. comparatively few cases involved the third degree. the tactics had long been outlawed by the supreme court, so what you are seeing, i think sometimes when people talk about the miranda decision it's something of a bait and switch. the point is made that people had been tortured to give confessions so we need the miranda rules. of course, the miranda rules aren't really designed to address those kinds of things. that had already long been abolished by the supreme court, and the real question that we should be talking about and i think the supreme court should have been talking about more directly in miranda was the psychological tactics the officers used. susan: was a federal crime involved? >> the fbi had something that --
the fbi had nothing like miranda. they had something like you have the right to remain silent and we will get you a lawyer when you go to court. miranda sort of garbled what the fbi was doing and said we will impose the same thing. but if miranda had imposed the same rules the fbi followed, i don't think it would be the most controversial criminal procedure decision in the history of the united states. but what chief justice warren did was take some rules and create a vast, exclusionary rule apparatus that throws out all kinds of confessions and imposes all kinds of prohibitions on asking even reasonable questions. >> comments? >> we will talk about what its effects were later, but the cops came to feel that it was far less than both sides had asked for. essentially, there were two pole
positions at stake. each side wanted a blanket rule that you have to have a station house lawyer -- one side wanted a blanket rule that you have to have a station house lawyer there at all times and no one can be questioned without a lawyer. once you are warned, it is presumed that the statement is voluntary, unless you say the magic words, "i want a lawyer." when i teach law, i say if you are ever interrogated by the police, say the magic words, "i want a lawyer," because that is when the interrogation has to stop and you are hugely empowered. that was the big innovation of veranda. -- miranda. we will talk later about how many confessions that led to having overturned. many people say it didn't decrease that many confessions, but warren is doing three things. first, you have to read the warning.
second, if you ask for a lawyer, interrogation stops. third, if you waive the rights, it has to be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent and it puts the burden on the cops to prove that. >> so, he was looking for a way to address this and he told his clerks to look for cases that might fit the bill. when the cases came before the court there were four. susan: miranda and -- talk about the other three. >> they were cases designed to provide the supreme court with a full picture of police interrogation in america. one is the one we're talking about. then there was westfield versus united states. that was a federal case and the solicitor general of the united states argued in front of the supreme court. that's their good martial coup
-- marshall -- that's thurgood marshall, who was just a few years later appointed to the supreme court, and he was arguing against miranda rules because they would affect state law enforcement agencies as well as federal law enforcement agencies like the fbi. >> so, the four cases go before the court. how does the process work? >> a lot of arguments take place over time and a lot of phenomenal lawyers argue them. in addition to thurgood marshall, tougher taylor, a great fourth amendment scholar who had in a lawyer at nuremberg, is arguing for the state of new york. mostly he is concerned that if the rule is announced that it not be retroactive and free a lot of people who had already been convicted. you have two civil libertarian heroes, marshall and taylor.
susan: so this came to the court from february through march of 1966. 10 lawyers were involved and argued more than seven hours spread out over three days. we don't see these kind of structures very often. it seems really complicated because of the number of cases. how does the court approach that? >> the full array of issues that had come up during police interrogation -- and one of the things that is striking about miranda in retrospect is how much it departed from the ordinary approach to judging and the ordinary approach to judicial process in this country. typically, you take the facts of the case and there are rules to address those particular facts. but again, keeping with the idea that many of the justices were politicians wanting to announce some broad and sweeping rule, they set up the case so that it would be designed almost to a -- allow traditional legislation
and regulation, whatever you want to call it -- to allow traditional legislation and regulation, whatever you want to call it, to come out of the decision on the issue. susan: as we heard john flynn , and john frank were the two lawyers with john flynn making the argument before the court for miranda. arizona's assistant attorney general gary nelson made the argument and the attorney for the national district attorneys association. anything noteworthy about the argument? paul: one of the things that's quite striking, we mentioned what a strong legal team miranda had. their team was arguing the sixth amendment. they are saying he did not get a lawyer during police questioning. miranda's brief doesn't argue that the fifth amendment was violated, the reason being that the fifth amendment was limited to the courtroom so the fifth
amendment was not something that was the focus of the oral argument or certainly the briefing. and that, we'll talk about how the decisions comes about but there is a disconnect between the arguments advanced and the decision that comes forward. >> flynn did mention the fifth amendment, he said to justice stewart, if a man is rich and educated enough to knew his rights, if he recognizes he has a fifth amendment right to ask counsel, then it's ok and that is key to overcoming inequality and coercion in a police station. he gives a speech the next year he says when we talk about the effective assistance of counsel, you should know what i did, i briefed and argued the case entirely on a sixth amendment proposition and now the supreme court goes and decides it another way so frank himself and flynn wound up saying were we
committing ineffective assistance of counsel because we were arguing one thing? susan: so the questions before the court in these cases -- is a confession admissible in the court of law obtained without warnings against self incrimination and without legal counsel? and who determines whether a defendant has legally waived his or her rights, what is the standard for judging whether voluntary confessions are admissible and when should an attorney be appointed for a person? so we're in the in era where the supreme court has begun recording audio of oral arguments. and next you'll hear a little bit from the two opposing attorneys and we'll listen to some of the case as they made it. >> the only person that can
adequately advise is a lawyer. that he had the right not to incriminate himself, that he had a right not to make any statement, that he had a right to be free of further questioning by the police department and he had a right to be represented adequately before the court and if he was indigent, the state would furnish him counsel. >> i agree with mr. justice black 100% that the fifth amendment, sixth amendment, every part of the constitution applies to everyone, poor, rich, ignorant, there is no possible basis for differentiation. i don't argue that. i don't think any prosecutor of note argues it. but miranda, i think, characteristically by the petitioner is portrayed in this light in an attempt to make something that isn't there. host: jeffrey rosen, what did you hear there?
jeffrey: he's not arguing that the confession is compelled by gun point. flynn is not claiming that so we're not talking about the third degree. squarely, both lawyers are struggling to use the sixth amendment which the court has said applies during interrogation and also the fifth amendment and they're also trying to come up with an alternative to the standard that the court already uses which is called the totality of the circumstances test. in a case called spano, chief justice warren had listed an opinion saying to look at all the characteristics of a defend, was he foreign born, did he speak english well, did he understand his rights? and it was an open ended test. that's what the lawyers there and other parts of the argument were stressing miranda wasn't well educated and didn't understand his rights but in the years since spano, the justices and society had come to believe this was just too unpredictable
to overcome the coercive pressures of the station house and that's why you hear the lawyers saying, the fifth and sixth amendments apply to everyone regardless of their station, it's not appropriate to make these case-by-case determinations and they're asking the court to come up with a bright line rule to protect all defendants. host: what did you hear? paul: i hear two arguments, one is the doctrinal argument that while this statement may not have been involuntary but there was a lot of pressure there. the problem with that argument is that for for hundreds of years these statements were admitted so the supreme court is grappling with throwing out everything before and announcing a new rule. the other thing is a pragmatic concern because if you take the
arguments that are being made seriously and say miranda should have had a lawyer during police interrogation, the lawyer will say say nothing whatsoever and if you go with that route, you end up with no police interrogation in america. susan: the minority, is there a back story that we know of on the case? >> one of the things we've been talking about, the fbi practices, pushing for broad regulation of the police. there would not be a problem with extending those practices to other agencies. the problem was that the fbi had not been doing anything like the sorts of things miranda ended up
opposing on. susan: from time to time we've heard stories about justices finding coalitions to bring them to their side. are there any good stories that would convince someone to go one side or the other in this one or was it lined up from the outset? >> i know there was some debate, and the fbi warnings were included. i know they've gone back now to look at some of the draft opinions that were written. one of the things added in the decision at the last minute was a statement that, this is one way of regulating police interrogation, but we leave it open to congress and the states, maybe they'll come up with other ways to regulate police interrogation so that compromise, at least verbally articulated or in the decision, articulated compromise, was critical to building the coalition. quick since we been talking about the f.b.i. warnings are quoted in the
miranda decision. here's what the f.b.i. said at the time. in any person being interviewed after warning of counsel decides he wishes to consult with couple of before proceeding further, the interview is terminated, f.b.i. does not pass judgment on the ability for the person to pay for counsel. the other thing i want to say is, the best way to understand the aranda decision itself, go to the interactive constitution and you will see paul and kate with a beautiful, common statement about what miranda means. you can read the fifth amendment on this side and then you see this common statement where paul cassell and kate stiff with a beautiful common statement about what miranda means. then new have separate statements about what you disagree about.
that's a great place for viewers to understand the decision. host: the chief justice chose to write the opinion himself. it was 60-plus pages. and he read it aloud in the courtroom in its entirety. how often does that happen? paul: not very often and certainly not with 60-page opinions. you can imagine it took several hours to do that but i think everyone knew when the decision came down, it was a landmark decision that would have reverberations to echo for years and years. host: and in fact the miranda rules were written into the decision so the text was really excerpted and became what we heard at the outset, used so often in police and crime dramas. here's a bit of chief justice earl warren's opinion. "at the outset, if a person in custody is subjected to interrogation, he must first be informed and clear in unequivocal terms that he has the right to remain silent."
what are you hearing there? paul: one of the things i think is strange about the decision is there are 50 pages of text and only until the last two pages do you get to specifically discussion about the facts of the case. a lot of commentators have said it reads like a legislative report with an attached statute and so there's a truly legislative feel to the decision that is at odds with what most of the decisions today look like. jeffrey: i think it was true to the spirit of the fifth and sixth amendment and not think it -- i think it was radical but agree it does have a legislative
quality, warren says at the beginning, middle and end, this is what the rules are, to repeat, these are the rules we want the cops to read and the fact that they seem to be taken from the f.b.i. reports and other sources but hadn't previously 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. host: before we get to the aftermath, we should tell the rest of ernesto miranda's story. it's quite a colorful and sad one. what happened to him next? he's just won this land mark case in the supreme court so what happens legally? jeffrey: he is paroled in 1972. arrested in 1974 for violations. he goes back to prison, after his release, he goes back to his old neighborhood. he actually sells miranda cards, autographing them, and makes his living and in 1976 he's playing poker in a bar, there's a
fistfight, he's fatally stabbed with a knife and killed and in his pocket are found copies of the miranda warning. host: he also tried to appeal his conviction to the supreme court. was not successful, right? paul: he was reconvicted because of a confession he made to his wife, of all people, is admitted, his common law wife and it turned out that because she was merely a common law wife, the rules of spousal privilege did not block of use of that confession so the only reason he was convicted was he gave a confession to his wife, rather than the police officers. host: here's an interesting koda to ernesto miranda's tale, killed in a bar fight with the miranda cards in his pocket and his killers, when arrested, were read the miranda rules. we have the officer you met early on, the arresting officer
in the case, adding more to the story. let's listen. >> after the supreme court decision, in 1966, the various departments around the state and the country developed their own miranda warning cards 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 had 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. now, miranda used to get these cards from police officers and he would see in this 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 some cards and then he would take those cards and sign them and he would try to sell them for a dollar or two. susan: there is the arresting officer's story of the person who gave his name to the miranda rights. the supreme court anticipated there would be a flood of cases that had been tried before. so they put a marker down that it would affect all cases going forward and not allowing appeals before. it was confusing. >> there were number of appeals in process and intron before them so they were truly cases of
murderers, there was one case where someone had knifed four or five people and killed them. that confession was perfectly allowed when the police obtained it because i did not have miranda cards and aranda rules. there's an interesting book called the self-inflicted wound, saying it took -- it was self-inflicted damage on this country because it created a spectacle of murderers literally walking free. >> there are other criminal procedure decisions that are not retroactive. remember telford taylor, the great advocate for new york. begged the court not to take it retroactive. you have to draw some lines, and that that is the line they drew. susan: we are going to go 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's listen. >> they thought 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. so there was an impact on me. i felt like i had been put in an awkward position. that i had been somewhat -- people thought that we had abused him. the most from the conversation you could ever have, like talking to an old friend. we did everything according to the book, in my opinion. i was very surprised. i thought, when i first heard it was going to the supreme court, i did not even know about the
state supreme court having already looked at it and upheld it. i thought, 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. if 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 shake, i -- what say, well, i think the supreme court made a mistake. we do the job according to what they tell us to do. sometimes, the results are negative because we have less convictions, more crime because a lot of people are turned back into society and 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.
susan: a retired police detective, the arresting officer 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 leahy, democratic senator from virginia. at the time miranda came around, he was in vermont in the state's attorney's office. he tells us about its effect on the state. susan: senator leahy: at that -- >> senator leahy: at that time, it was very controversial. we had to read this yucky -- guilty accused, as someone had said here. someone had used that expression, the guilty accused. there was no question. think of it this way. what if you were arrested for something?
and they got the wrong guy. wouldn't you want to know what your rights are? that sunk in pretty heavily. susan: let me put them on the screen, there were a number of cases. gideon versus wainwright, escobedo v. illinois. paul: that was the building block for miranda. terry versus ohio was the so-called stop and frisk case. it allows them to stop someone who is suspected of a crime and frisk them because they might be
carrying a weapon. susan: we talked about the controversy of this decision. the court really argued it strongly on both sides as well. you mentioned president nixon campaigned. congress also got into the act and passed the crime control and safe streets act in 1968. what were they trying to do? paul: congress was outraged by the miranda decision because criminals were going free and there was expected to be a dramatic act on law enforcement. congress passed a law reestablishing the old voluntary test for admitting of confessions. susan: we have 20 minutes left and i want to talk about what has happened in the years ensuing. there have been a number of cases that have begun to refine maranda. what are the important ones to know about?
jeffrey: the most in court and one -- the most important one is that dickerson case. paul had a crucial role in it. i will let him tee it up. the argument was that the court should reinstate the tests they -- that congress had embraced in 1968 and admit confessions if they were voluntary, defined as factors as the time arresting -- the time between the arrest and the agreement -- and the arraignment. 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 had insisted that the substitute for miranda -- therefore, the court surprised a lot of people. it was one of the most dramatic decisions of the rehnquist court. chief justice rehnquist himself
cast the sixth vote to uphold it. they are acting not against the wishes of subsequent white houses, but in conjunction with them. susan: it ended up being a 7-2 decision. this was the year 2000. the judge was asked to give a friend of the court argument that miranda should be overruled. tell us your perspective. paul: i argued in defense of the 1968 statute. the history that jeff is referring to is disputed. president johnson said we are not going to enforce this law. president nixon said it should be argued in court. i argued as a friend of the court. one of the strange things that happened, arguing in defense of the federal statute, the administration refused to defend the law even though there were
strong arguments on its behalf. that set the stage for the ruling against it. if the clinton administration had sent their solicitor general, i think things might have come out differently. susan: there is a bit of what chief justice william rehnquist wrote. "we hold that maranda, being a constitutional decision of this court, may not be overruled an act of congress and we decline to overrule miranda ourselves." susan: jeffrey: it is a remarkable decision. chief justice rehnquist has said that miranda is not a constitutional decision and he would come to the edge of overruling it. he shots everyone by upholding it. jeffrey: why does he do this? one thing he says is that maranda 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 maranda into the cheops pyramid of judicial arrogance. i did not know what it was or how to pronounce it before justice scalia reminded us that cheop was a king who was so arrogant that he believed he could build the biggest pyramid and history and killed a lot of people doing that. justice rehnquist was a pragmatist. much more conservative. he had been the lone ranger and a little bit here -- pure in his constitutional abuse. -- views. we saw those tv warnings. we saw the fact that this symbolized law enforcement across the board. that combined with the fact that the other justices accepted. 7-2, rejected. susan: pete is in georgia.
you are on the air. susan: caller: my question is about the hearing in 2013. some of the inherent weaknesses >> were going to listen to our warren's grandson who shares with us some personal, family history, his grandfather's view of the miranda decision. let's 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 constitution and laws of the united states and then hope that
they will be so consider it in the future. >> this is the binder of letters that i have from 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. this was his big point. "if all of these laws were ok, many of our problems would be solved or we would be in manageable shape for solutions." "we must also take into consideration human nature. he goes on to say that we do not want to burn everything down because the result will be
anarchy. and i know you know from your books that governments and institutions are struck down. they are almost always replaced by autocracies. who suffers most under them? the minorities, of course. then he finishes, "i know that i have not resolve any of your perplexities, but my hope is that in the young people of today. i believe they can and they will bring to bear the strength of their idealism to right the wrongs that regretfully have been done or ignored by four generations and particularly my own. affectionately, grandpa. susan: earl warren, former chief justice's communication to his son. last word on what was discussed tonight.
paul: earl warren's legacy is a mixed one. it is an example of criticizing the courts. once the justices become nothing more than politicians in robes, we have bitter confirmation battles and the sort of thing we have seen playing out over the decades. jeffrey: what a beautiful quip. what a great name. i love the god bless america. that shows oral warren's fundamental concern of translating the values of the sixth amendment in the modern age. and the fifth amendment, concerned about not exerting psychological pressure on heretics took confess, just by having their will overborne by psychological pressure. warren takes that it makes it modern in the 20th century and he does it by quoting justice brandeis. he was a teacher and he thought the court has to be a shining
emblem for human dignity. susan: you are suggesting it is time for us as a society to rethink some of these changes based on technology. >> i think maranda could be updated, could be more effective. as jeff has mentioned, there are a lot of people thinking about this, and hopefully we can all come together and try to think about body cameras, videotaping interrogation, other things that would update and perhaps not overrule miranda. susan thank you so much for : being in our audience tonight for your great questions and comments. ♪