Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American Libraries
TV News
Understanding 9/11tv Miranda CSPAN August 23, 2017 2:25am-2:45am EDT
2:25 am
radio app. up next we speak with gary stewart on the landmark case variant of the arizona. >> you have the right to remain silent, you have the right to a
2:26 am
lawyer come if you don't have a lawyer, one will be provided for you. and everything you tell me today that can be used against you in the court oa court of law. do you understand that? they are called the miranda rights or warnings because the name on the case that came down from the united states supreme court in 1966 was miranda versus arizona. they are as fundamental and essential to justice today as almost anything ever created because they are a product of the fifth amendment to the u.s. constitution. that's where they came from, that's why we have them and that's what they stand for today. >> bar and have lived here in mesa arizona, born in mesa arizona, a young man in his mid-20s at the time. he was suspected by the phoenix police department of being
2:27 am
involved in the abduction of a robbery and kidnapping of three different women, three different occasions. all of those occasions happened in downtown phoenix. the pickup for lack of a better word was done in downtown phoenix. some of the crimes took place out in the desert at the time it wawas thought to be the desert s now 20th street. it's no longer the desert, it is a major part of central phoenix today but that's how it started. a suspect in the crimes. the police went to his home in mesa arizona, two police officers and they asked him if he would come down to the police station in central phoenix. they would drive him down here and they learned about some criminal activity.
2:28 am
they weren't sure what at the time, and he agreed to do that so they brought him down here and interviewed him were anticipated, depending on your perspective, here in the building that we are in today. but the police had no directive incident of any kind. they hav had no physical eviden, no eyewitness identification, no wickedness or admissions. nothing which to base a formal arrest or charge him, but they asked him for an interview and he -open-curly-brace an interview. he was not warned of the consequences of this interview because the law didn't require that in 1963, so during the course of talking to him, the police officer that was in charge of the case and was the primary interrogator or interviewer at the time, his
2:29 am
name was carl and he was then a police detective, stayed with the police department caught alive and well today still lives here in phoenix, and during the course of the interview, miranda denied any connection to any of these three cases to the police department was investigating. he said he was not involved in abducting anybody come he didn't read anybody orape anybody or rr kidnap anyone. that was his clear statement. so they asked him some of the director did it come detective asked if he would appear in a lineup and they would bring in one of the victims were two of the victims, it wasn't quite clear and if he's telling the truth then they won't be able to identify him and they had no other evidence and they were open with him about that they
2:30 am
had no other evidence, so they asked him if he would agree to be in a lineup, not a photo lineup that an actual lineup but also took place here in this building and he agreed and there is a room for that. they found two of the victims who were able to come in on short notice. phoenix is a very small place so the two women came in and neither of the two women could identify with certainty. one said she thought it might be the man with posted on the one as to three and four only in this lineup room but she wasn't sure. and the other one couldn't pick one of the four, but agreed that it might be number one but there was deposited in the case. so, on the basis of that, the
2:31 am
detective went back into the interview room where miranda was waiting and asked the detective did they pick the outcome how did i do thought the interview wasn't tape-recorded owas a tapo recorded, this was 1963 and the detective said i'm sorry or words to that effect, they nailed you said the best thing for you is to tell me what happened and we will see what we can do to help you and miranda did. he confessed to all of them and described in some detail although there is no recording key described in some detail and the detective said, which was good police procedure then and
2:32 am
now i'd like you to write this out and i will sign it so there was a one-page compassion in his own handwriting and he read it and said okay if this is the truth, sign it down here at the bottom and there is a reference in that written statement that it can be used in court against him. it's one of the four elements of that part is there. he then signed it and it became exhibit number one in his trial. this is the sixth floor in the
2:33 am
courthouse. the first floor of the building is where miranda was tried and we are now on the sixth floor. he was kept here in this jail until his trial and was moved to a temporary institution and then the state penitentiary. the physical presence is important because he was jailed and kept here in trial but there were two separate finals, there were three cases, three women involved and he admitted in the conversation with the detective to all three cases but only in one of the cases was he asked to write out a statement and that was in the rate of one of the three women and it was clear to the jury making an assumption
2:34 am
that his confession is a troupe of a very confession, he said it was. he didn't take the stand in either case which is a standard in those cases so he was quickly convicted by two different injuries in two different cases one day apart. they went into the system in 1963 and that led to the appellate process that began after the actual trials and the lawyer was a man named alvin and at the time in 1963 was a 73-year-old lawyer here in phoenix. during the trial, alvin objected to the admissibility of the written confession because his
2:35 am
objection was because he didn't have a lawyer before he gave this statement, the statement to the judge was i object because there was no lawyer present at the time and no one told him that so when the case went to the arizona supreme court, it went up there in 1965, that was the record as there was an objection made by a lawyer on mr. miranda's behalf, but his compassion shouldn'that hisconfn admitted and shown to the jury because he didn't have a lawyer at the time he gave it some in the case went to the arizona supreme court and came down with an opinion in 1965 they rejected the argument that the confession shouldn't be admitted because he didn't have a lawyer and the arizona supreme court said that
2:36 am
isn't required. the supreme court has not said that the confession is inadmissible if you don't have a lawyer. what the court said two years prior to the court said that the suspect asks for a lawyer anytime during or before an interrogation you have to give him one. in this case variant that had not asked for a lawyer so that is the issue the supreme court took up in 1966. so in that briefing stage prior to the oral argument in that case, all of podgorica focused on the question. if they are required, who has to
2:37 am
give that, just knowledgeable ae people or everybody so that was the setting. and the briefs in all of the cases focused on the sixth amendment which is the right to counsel so when the argument is held in february of 66 in the case of a. the quest was something like
2:38 am
this. the suspect is avoiding bad in all of these cases so what is your view in this competition occurs. he said mr. justice, the issue here is whether they have a right to remain silent. the only person that can tell him that is a lawyer. so the fifth amendment right against self-incrimination and the second amendment right to counsel were connected here at
2:39 am
that juncture in that intersection somebody has to tell the suspect before he or she confesses her. based on the fifth amendment they have financially tied to the primary issue in the opinion came down to the. so that is the first warning. you have the right to remain silence. he wrote the majority opinion it is the split opinion of the 5-4 decision in reaction to the decision is the law enforcement community and very reluctant and very suspecting so they said
2:40 am
it's not our job to give people the arrest. they should be charged with crimes committed and he can't charge them because they didn't admit it so the admission of the crime is a very important element of all law enforcement understandably so. so the reaction was negative largely a. in 2,000 what was arguably the second most important decision was the case called dickerson
2:41 am
versus the united states and in that case the supreme court said enough, once and for all. it is a constitutional decision of this court. it's not a prophylactic rules decision, it is a constitutional decision for the record we should continue to examine cases that involve the issues of the inadmissibility of concessions but telling us that it is a rules prophylactic rules case it is for this case but what makes it interesting is the date of that payment was written by a chief justice rehnquist. ..
2:42 am
they are interested in the issue and so they invite people to write briefs and a good many of those briefs were filed by chiefs of police associations, other law-enforcement agencies, arguing for randles, no longer believing that miranda is a bad thing.
2:43 am
no longer believing that a harms law-enforcement, believing that the reality has become that if the police officer does his or her job and gives those miranda warnings and does it in a proper way, tape recording, video recording, written documentation in some form that's reliable, then what happened in the trial court system is that most, if the concession is miranda compliant then the judge admitted to evidence. to become a good way for a good cop to get a good profession through the document. get it in writing.
2:44 am
get the suspect to sign it. record it. that's the reality today. prosecutors and defense lawyers don't argue much anymore about that. they will argue whether or not that miranda rights were waived. so that's what's really happened. we now argue about waiver, not whether we now argue about consequence in ways that i think are central to do process of law. >> you are watching the tv on c-span2 in priim
36 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
CSPAN2
Television Archive 
Television Archive News Search Service 
Uploaded by TV Archive on
