miranda. i asked her, are you sure? and she says, well, it looks like him but maybe if i heard his voice i might be able to make a positive. i didn't say anything. when we went back into the room, i waited for a while. i wasn't quite sure what i was going to say. and ernie asked me, how did i do? and i said, well, you didn't do so good, ernie. he said, well, i guess i better tell you about it then. i said, that would be a good idea. and he did. he told us about the kidnapping, rape and robbery. after he told us, i said, would you sign a written confession, which says that at the beginning of the report, on the form, i did this statement voluntarily, without coercion or threats or promises of immunity. knowing my legal rights. then he wrote the statement all on one short page. the writing was excellent. and the spelling was excellent. and 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. mirand

if miranda had imposed the same rules and i don't think anyone of us would be talking about miranda andwould sht have been the most controversial decision in the history of the united states, but what chief justice warren did was take the warnings to be provided and created in this vast, exclusionary rule apparatus that throws out all kind confessions and prohibitions on even asking reasonable questions of suspects in custody. >> comments? >> well, we'll talk about what his effects were later, but the cops came to feel there were two at stake. the aclu wanted a blanket rule and you had to have a station lawyer and you cannot interrogate without a lawyer present. the cops wanted the present, and a very moderate one which essentially said you have to be warned and once you are warned it's presumed that the statement is voluntary unless you say the magic words i want a lawyer. when i teach criminal procedure, the most valuable thing i can do and now we can share this incredibly sophisticated advice, say to the police i want a lawyer because then the investigation has to stop and you are hu

the problem with miranda -- truth about the fbi. the problem with miranda is the exclusionary rule.t 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. welet's 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 court's procedural structure. byron white, not so much. scholar, a football player, detrimental to congress, pro-law 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. ju

miranda was a repeat criminal, . somebody who had been arrested, convicted, sentenced a number of times, a drifter who really umb didn't have established lly employment or any place to work. then, on the night in question, he at knifepoint abducted a young woman and raped her. that's the backdrop that's here. jeff is talking about the warren court revolution. the other thing going on simultaneously with miranda committing this violent crime is violent crime is skyrocketing in america in the '60s. whether it's the warren court or something else that's responsible for that. that's part of the backdrop. >> march 2nd, 1963.she wa patricia, 18 years old, leaving work in phoenix, arizona. on the way home she was . kidnapped, raped and robbed and driven back to her house. we have a series of accusationsr of very serious crimes. how did this, then, proceed from here? >> so, the following week there is another robbery, and some a witnesses see a car that seems to belong to miranda at a bus . stop. the police check out the car

miranda was from here. judged then lawyer rehnquist was here and the year 2000 becomes a constitutional decision. something interesting happened and 2000 when the case went up. if you look at the end of that case and read the briefs, the briefs in the supreme court cases, u.s. supreme court cases, they invite a class of people for lack of a better word. they are called amicus kyrie eyes or mot briefs, friends of the court. they are not parties of the brief but they are interested in the issue so they invite people to write briefs called amicus briefs and a good many of those briefs were filed in the dickerson case by chiefs of elites associations. other law enforcement associations arguing for miranda no longer believing that aranda is a big -- bad thing. no longer believing that it harms law enforcement, believing the reality is to come in the reality is if the police officer does his or her job and gets those miranda warnings and does it in a proper way tape recording, video recording, written documentati

miranda was from here. it's then lawyer rehnquist and all of that gets transferred to the year 2000 and becomes a constitutional decision. something interesting happened in 2000 when the case went up. if you begin with that case and read the brief , the briefs in supreme court cases , they invite a class of people for lack of a better word. they're called anarchists she arrived or amicus briefs, friends of the court. they're not party to the case but they're interested in the issue so they invite peopleto write briefs , they're called amicus briefs and a good many of those briefs were filed in the case by g of police associations, other law enforcement agencies are going for miranda. no longer believing miranda is a bad thing. no longer believing it harms law enforcement. believing what the reality has become and the reality is that if the police officer does his or her job, and gives those miranda warnings and does them in a proper way, recording, video recording, written documentation in some form that's

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 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 poli

if the police violate your miranda rights but discover physical evidence, as a result of that mirandaiolation that physical evidence can be admitted. so in that sense, yes, there are some constitutional violations that can happen that result in other evidence that is allowed in. >> okay. so let's back up a bit to go forward. on march 23rd, 1964, ohio supreme court justice voted to reverse dollree map's lower cost loss, but she lost the appeal because there's a technicality in ohio law that a super majority was required. so how did we get from there to the supreme court? what's the route? >> sure. whenever there's a federal question you can appeal to the u.s. supreme court by filing a petition for writ of certiorari. that's what kearns did. mapp wanted to take it as far as she could, so he filed for a writ of certiorari before the u.s. supreme court. as we were talking about earlier, obscenity was an issue the court was exploring tentatively. it caught their eye. we look to the records of warren and tom clark and find that eight of the nine justices on the court granted the writ of cer

ohio does not enjoy the household recognition of a case like miranda versus arizona, it affected a profound change in criminal procedure. tonight dr. carolyn long examines the procedure in part of her discussion of her latest book. as you know, it's titled "mapp v. ohio: guarding against unreasonable searches and seizu seizures." dr. long is the associate director of the college of liberal arts, director of the program of public affairs and associate professor in the department of political science at washington state university in vancouver, washington. she earned her bachelor of arts from the university of oregon and her ph.d. in political science from rutgers university. dr. long has also been a fulbright scholar and is the author of many scholarly articles and book chapters. the book she presents tonight is her third. please welcome dr. carolyn long. [ applause ] >> thank you for the kind introduction. before i begin i would like to thank the co-sponsors of the event, university press of kansas and the university of kansas school of law, and the co-presenters and funders of this talk, t

of someone's miranda rights. you know, the standard rights that you hear on every evening talk show. you have the right to remain silent, you have the right to an attorney if you can't afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. if the police violates your miranda rights, but discover physical evidence as a result of that miranda violation, that physical evidence can be admitted. so in that sense, yes, there are some constitutional violations that can happen that result in other evidence. that is allowed in. >> okay. so let's back up a bit to go forward. on march 23rd, 1964, four of seven ohio supreme court justices voted to reverse dollree mapp's court loss. but she lost that appeal because there's a technicality in ohio law that a super majority was required. how did we get from there to the supreme court? what's the route? >> whenever there's a federal question, you can appeal to the u.s. supreme court by filing a petition for writ of certiori. so that's what mapp did. and as we were talking about earlie

miranda versus arizona bears special mention. in this case the exclusionary rule was extended to involuntary and coerced confessions and that really put the court in the public's eye. moreover, it's important to night that the criminal due process revolution occurred at the same time the court liberal lies the rules of habeas corpus. the supreme court this tackled criminal procedural rights before but did so on a case-by-case basis, examining whether someone's due process rights were violated but with mapp which opened the incorporation floodgates the court started to systematically and comprehensively address criminal procedure rights for everyone. it's this criminal due process revolution which makes mapp v. ohio to significant. if you realize that law enforcement's investigatory activities and the prosecution of criminal defense -- defendants happens at the state and local level then you can know that mapp v. ohio might come into play with potentially hundreds of thousands or millions of cases. it's also important to note how

let's dig into those numbers with miranda carr. miranda was his an aberration or a slowdown when can comes to fundamental factors? >> i think with the economy and western markets, we had a very surprisingly strong june numbers and surprisingly weak july numbers those two factors even out. and the last two months we're see improving economies in the western economies both in the u.s. and eu demands picking up almost in double digits. so that's pretty positive. and also domestics when you think of excavators, machine tools, consumers to commodities, they're not great but coming along pretty well. but what china's throwing out is the huge anomalies in the markets. you got two factors messing up the figures and messing up basically the demand picture >> but i do need to pick up on two points the fact exports to the eu has been the u.s.' biggest trading partner with the drop in double digits do you think this is a sign of slowdown in the u.s. and eu? >> well, the u.s. numbers were particularly strong in june, but the previous year down

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 prime time tonight. >> i've been collecting rare books for the past 30 years. i decided to relocate after selling my bookshop which also sells new books and in the past ten or 15 years the sales of new books have really suffered with the advent of e-books and everything going digital, but what i found is the interest and rare books has increased. in my shop right now there are about a thousand books. in my inventory there are about 5000 books. i rotate books i specialized in four different areas. i specialize in bibles from the past 500 years, i specialize in early mormon books, classical literature and early american history. i enjoy collecting bibles that belong to historical figures. i also like to share brigham young's copy of the book of mormon. it is housed in a nice protective clamshell. according to family traditi

sot 00:00:40 francisca miranda "nunca pues me habían llegado dos billes" entonces llam a telecircuitu le estaban cobrando. sot 00:02:00 "entonces yo les dije que no, que nunca había aceptado esa compañía. que como me habian mandado bill y todo de ahi" telecircuit le dijo que ella si acept el servicio de larga distancia y que la conversacin haba sido grabada. sot 00:02:17 "entonces le dije yo dejeme oir la grabacion y se oyó una señora que dijo que era maria sanchez.. dije yo no soy maria sanchez." y telecircuit le dijo que tena que pagar la deuda. pero la seÑora miranda colg y llam a a-t-and-t para preguntarles si ellos estaban afiliados a esa compaÑa, pero dice que no obtuvo respuesta, sino que le ofrecieron otro plan de servicio de llamadas de larga distancia. pero al mes siguiente le lleg la cuenta de a-t-and-t demasiado alta. su frustracin la oblig a llamar a telemundo 48 responde. sot 00:05:48 "porque hice varias llamadas a att&t y la ultima que hice me pasaban de una persona a otra persona." y sin que le resolvieran el problema. asi que nosotros contactamos a a-t-and-t y les ex

you have -- with miranda, you don't question the idea that police should be advising people of their rights. now, there are debates about how much should be excluded and under what circumstances evidence should be excluded in criminal trials, but really these cases establish the whole framework of how criminal prosecution exists, both arrests from the police standpoint -- arrests and in the courts how things proceed, that governs everything we do day-to-day. >> i daresay most americans who watch any of the criminal tv programs can probably recite their miranda rights without even having been advised now, it is such a part of this culture. >> and they're wondering where the dna evidence is when it isn't introduced. >> they do wonder where the dna evidence is when it isn't introduced. i'm told we're supposed to wrap this up at 7:00 exactly. so perhaps each one of my panelists has a parting shot? judge dyk, would you like to start us off? >> well, it has been a pleasure to do this. i have really enjoy it. i enjoyed learning more about what was going on in the warren court at the time th

lin-manuel miranda's point was we need to embrace the contradiction. that this is a man who speaks beautifully about freedom, who owned other human beings. you need to confront that contradiction. you can't ignore it. but then you need to transcend it. that is the sand in the oyster, he said. i do think that while washington sidestepped the question of slavery -- hereto he is still trying to forestall the civil war -- and the founders understood that the fault lines of the north and south with slavery were the most likely for civil war. washington as president is a , thenating example conversation he has with attorney general randolph, where he says, if there's a civil war, i go in with the north. he feels captive with the cruel economy in a way that seems when late -- that seems wanly ironic today. what is fascinating is that the coda to the farewell address is his last will and testament. that is a point i make in the book a great deal. willnk washington's last and testament needs to be understood as the coda to his farewell address. he releases his

in 1966 miranda versus arizona gave rise to the miranda warning now read to a suspect being arrested. the court ruled 5-4 that suspects must be informed of their rights before they are questioned. these rights include the fifth amendment right against self increme nation and the sixth amendment right to and attorney. this is about an hour and 35 minutes. ♪ >>> all persons having business before the honorable the supreme court of the united states are admonished to draw near and give their attention. >> "landmark cases," c-span's special history series produced in cooperation with the national constitution center, exploring the human stories and constitutional dramas behind 12 historic supreme court decisions. >>> number 759. ernest miranda, petitioner, versus arizona. >> we'll hear arguments in number 18. roe against wade.

this saturday and sunday at the eighth street recreation field , right here, on stone harbor and mirandaee admission so is there nothing stopping from you coming down and enjoying all of the that has to offer. >>> one of the other things of course it is known with the shore would be ice cream. everybody wants to get their ice cream when they get here. everybody has their favorite place to go. if is there anyone on our team that knows ice cream, you guessed it, it is vittoria woodill. lets go back to her. we heard you found quite the sweet treat. >> well, we love ice cream but we also love waffles. what is the best part of the waffle. >> probably eating it with ice cream. >> yeah, what else is amazing about waffles. >> it is, just delicious, it is happiness in a waffle. >> did you hear that, happ iness in a waffle. speaking of happiness in a waffle, i found my own happ iness in a waffle at two places, one in stone harbor, one in avalon, check it out. i i scream, you scream, we all scream for ice cream. >> and if you are looking to pair that perfect summer treat with anything, how about a

miranda jr., the father of lin-manuel. i am pleased to have them here at this table. welcome. >> thank you. >> thank you, charlie. >> rose: give me the history of graham windham. because it was the largest private orphanage. >> correct. and the fact was it has evolved. it merged. but in twu 6, it celebrated 200 years of existence. and when you think about it, it is foster care kids, the new orphans in our society. so the institution has morphed and has evolved in helping thousands and thousands of kids iin the foster care system. >> rose: they basically place kids who can live with a family that takes care of foft ear they may not stay there for a long-term period? >> they do, and they work to get permanent homes. but they're different to the degree that they're making a commitment to that child or to that adolescent to be with them until they're 25, not just until they place them. but they will continue to work with them until they're young adults to make sure that their path to success is established. most of them just will let go with placement, with adoption. they

in 1966 miranda versus arizona gave rise to the miranda warning now rea

they are called the miranda rights or the miranda warnings because the name of the case they came downfrom the states supreme court in 1966 was miranda versus arizona.

when men while miranda's point was, we need to embrace the contradiction. this is a man that speaks beautifully about freedom, who owned other human beings. need to confront that contradiction. you can't ignore it. and then you need to transcend it. while washington sidesteps the question of slavery. he is trying to forestall the civil war. the founders understood that the fault lines of north and south were the most likely lines. washington as president is a fascinating example, the conversation he has with randolph. captive to its cruel economy in a way that seems sort of ironic today. he understands it's a problem not only for the country, but for himself. is it is hisnating last will and testament. that is a point i make in the book a great deal. it is the coder to his farewell address. he releases his slaves on his death. most he inherited. you can argue that is too little too late. but it's worth member and he's consciously trying to send a message to the nation about the direction we need to go. non-subsequent -- nine subsequent presidents did not re

and then lin-manuel miranda came into my life. we made "in the heights" together, which was a joyous experience. and then "hamilton" which has absolutely been the biggest one of all. charlie: by a wide margin. jeffrey: what is so joyous about that is this notion that something comes into the world through the inspiration and artistic ingenuity of someone like lynn and creates a need where we never knew we needed it before. and it creates a want where we never knew we wanted it before. and yet it fills us with so many rich feelings. feelings of aspiration, feelings of patriotism, feelings of camaraderie, and of course, feelings of loss and of grief. some of the he gave actors, made them part of our history. jeffrey: it has been a game changer. in a, how we can educate young people, how we can inspire young people. and tommy and our creative team have created a show that looks like america today so that young youngn-americans, latinos, young mexicans, young asian-americans can look at that stage and say, i'm part of the story. charl

what they argue about is were the miranda rights waived or not. that's the new question du jour, has been for a long time so that's what's happening is we now argue about the waiver, not weather. and we now argue about consequence in ways that i think are central to the due process of law. >> encore presentation of some of the stops along the c-span city tour continues as we take you to san jose california. >> so many people come to california because they see it as a union. and of course television hasn't helped cause ask anybody, particularly east of the rockies and they all think all people in california drive convertibles, have a big dog and back of the car and sit around drinking beer because that's what california is all about. that's what commercials have been about for many years but that's not what california is about. if you know anything about california and i was born in california , studied this state 50 years or more, you realize that this state is so topsy-turvy, it's like a roller coaster gone bad. it can be a boom state economical

. ♪ con tremenda fiesta celebrada en chino miranda y natacha y su boda que los confirma como marido y