Confession

Summary

Buried Bones – "Confession" Episode Summary

April 16, 2025 | Hosts: Kate Winkler Dawson & Paul Holes

---

Overview

In this episode of Buried Bones, journalist Kate Winkler Dawson and retired cold case investigator Paul Holes dissect the landmark 1963 case of Ernesto Miranda, whose arrest and confession led to the Supreme Court decision establishing Miranda Rights. Through a detailed retelling, they explore the flawed investigation, police interrogation methods, the resulting trial, and how this case shaped the rights of suspects in custodial interrogations across America.

The conversation delves into victim treatment, polygraph reliability, the mechanics of lineups, false confessions, mental vulnerability in suspects, and how American law enforcement culture changed as a result of Miranda v. Arizona.

The tone is both thoughtful and investigative, with a mix of expert insight and engaging storytelling.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

Setting the Scene

• (08:11 – 10:49) Phoenix, 1963: An 18-year-old woman, returning home late from work, is abducted, bound, driven into the desert, sexually assaulted, and then returned to her neighborhood.
• Victim's Experience: Despite trauma, she recalls details about the assailant's car – a gray or light green sedan with striped interior – but cannot identify the perpetrator.
• Paul on Secondary Locations (12:33):

  “You never, ever let yourself be taken to a secondary location... what they're going to do to you at that secondary location is going to be far worse than being shot or stabbed or killed at that contact spot.”

Police Response and Victim-Blaming

• (19:35 – 21:17) The victim is forced by police to undergo a polygraph test to "prove" her credibility, reflecting the era’s deep victim-blaming and misogyny in law enforcement.

• Polygraphs are unreliable: Even in the 1920s, courts recognized their unreliability; by 2005, federal funding was withdrawn from states requiring rape survivors to take such tests, yet as of this episode, not all states have banned the practice.

• Paul on Polygraph Use (21:17):

  “It’s a tool…there’s no way you can, you know, affect an arrest based off of failing a polygraph.”

Evidence and Investigation

• The car description matches other open cases, suggesting a possible serial offender.
• The brother-in-law stumbles upon a likely suspect car—a 1953 Packard—leading to police questioning of Ernesto Miranda, a young man with a troubled but nonviolent history.

Police Interrogation Techniques

• Custodial Interrogation:
  Ernesto is voluntarily brought in; interrogation occurs in a small "sweat room," reflecting harsh, old-fashioned tactics.

• Miranda’s Profile:
  Born into poverty, minimal education, history of petty crime, considered intellectually vulnerable.

• Kate’s Reveal (36:19):
  The case is that Miranda:

  “So, smarty, tell me what Ernesto’s last name is.”
  “Miranda.”
  “Yep. This is the Miranda rights case. 1963.”

Lineup Procedures and Confession

• (37:46 – 41:31)
  Miranda is placed in a flawed lineup; two women tentatively identify him after police pressure. Police then falsely inform Miranda he's been "positively identified," leading to his confession.

• Discussion on Lineups:
  Modern procedures now require lineups to be fair and not biased toward the suspect.

• Police Deception During Interrogation:
  Police are allowed by law to lie to suspects, but certain individuals (young, intellectually challenged) are more susceptible to false confessions.

• Paul on Interrogation Risks (42:46):

  “We know individuals that are intellectually challenged, that have certain personalities, that are of a certain age, etc., are more susceptible to caving in, either to being under the influence of the interrogator or to caving into the circumstances.”

The Reid Technique and False Confessions

• (44:19 – 46:22)
  Discussion of the confrontational, manipulative “Reid Technique” of interrogation—California has banned it due to its tendency to create false confessions, especially among vulnerable populations.
• Case Study: In one past case, police fed suspects crime details and later typed up confessions for them to sign—often unrecorded and highly unreliable.

Miranda’s (Dubious) Confession

• (47:45 – 52:15)
  Miranda’s written confession includes mostly case facts; questions arise about whether he provided unique details or simply repeated what interrogators suggested. He has an eighth-grade education and appears intellectually vulnerable.
• The confession is signed under a statement reading "with full knowledge of my rights," though he was never Mirandized—central to the coming legal challenge.

Trial, Appeal, and the Supreme Court

• Initial Trials:

  • Miranda’s defense attempts an insanity plea. Psychiatric opinions vary: "schizophrenic reaction" vs. mere immaturity.
  • Jury convicts him swiftly on both robbery and rape.
  • The rape case hinges on his signed confession, undisturbed by the defense (who, by accident, calls it a "confession" and hurts the case).

• Appeals and the Supreme Court (57:20 – 60:37):
  Down a winding path, Miranda’s appeal challenges the confession's admissibility. The Supreme Court rules 5–4 in his favor, stating:

  • Police must inform suspects of their rights prior to custodial interrogation—right to remain silent, to an attorney, and against self-incrimination.
  • No prescribed language but the familiar police “Miranda warning” becomes standard.

• Aftermath:
  Miranda is retried, convicted again (without use of the confession), and serves time. After parole, he’s killed in a bar fight in 1975; the suspected killer flees to Mexico and is never convicted.

• Supreme Court Rationale (60:37):

  “If the Constitution only protects Americans who are educated enough to know their rights, then not all Americans are protected.”

---

Memorable Quotes & Moments

• Cultural Reflection
  Kate: “This is the Miranda rights case… I can't believe it took till 1963 to sort all this out.” (36:24)
• On Law Enforcement Culture:
  Paul: “Unfortunately, this is an era in which law enforcement did a lot of victim blaming. I saw it over and over again from cases out of the 1960s, 1970s.” (19:55)
• On False Confessions:
  Paul: “…it does cause susceptible individuals to falsely confess to something they didn’t do… it’s just the way that these individuals are manipulated…” (43:04)
• Landmark Law:
  Kate: "If this man’s last name were not Miranda, this would be the end of our story. But … that's why this case turns into a big case." (55:57)
• On Legal Nuance:
  Paul: “It's almost a tactical way of having to approach … you have to assess your suspect, the situation ... and whether or not it truly does require to Mirandize them or not. Or is it in the gray area?” (58:16)
• Supreme Court Irony:
  Kate: “…the murderer of Ernesto Miranda ... no one was ever arrested for the murder of Ernesto Miranda.” (63:21)
• On Changing Law Enforcement:
  Paul: “You go through the police academy and you’re told about Miranda, but then there’s other case law that have modified Miranda ... you have to make that adjustment or you potentially could have a case thrown out.” (64:58)

---

Major Timestamps

• 08:11 – Setting the crime scene in 1963 Phoenix
• 12:33 – Modern advice on abduction (no secondary locations)
• 19:35 – Police polygraph and victim-blaming
• 28:34 – Brother-in-law spots the suspect car
• 36:19 – The Miranda Rights reveal
• 37:46 – Analysis of flawed lineup procedures
• 41:31 – Police pressure and Miranda’s confession
• 44:19 – The Reid Technique and false confessions
• 47:45 – Confession scrutiny and statement analysis
• 52:15 – Miranda’s trials, mental health testimony
• 55:54 – Defensive missteps and rapid jury conviction
• 57:20 – Appeal to the Supreme Court; the ruling
• 60:27 – Miranda’s retry, prison, and eventual death
• 64:58 – Why learning legal changes matters for law enforcement

---

Noteworthy Insights

• Victim-blaming and use of early polygraph testing were normative, reflecting both the misogyny and the primitive state of police forensics and psychology.
• Defective lineups and suggestive police tactics in the '60s contributed to wrongful convictions.
• The Miranda case didn’t originate from a noble defendant: Ernesto Miranda was guilty, but his rights were violated—and everyone’s were strengthened as a result.
• The law’s evolution is often driven by imperfect cases and imperfect people.
• Modern interrogation practices are still reckoning with the consequences of techniques proven to create false confessions.

---

Conclusion

This episode provides a gripping case study in how a single, deeply flawed investigation—the rape and robbery case against Ernesto Miranda—changed American legal history. It foregrounds the importance of protecting constitutional rights for all, regardless of guilt or education, and underlines the dangers of abusive investigative tactics. Kate and Paul’s discussion underscores how the lessons of old cases echo through modern policing and jurisprudence, reminding listeners why these legal protections matter.

---

For more visuals, evidence, and updates:
Instagram: @buriedbonespod

Transcript

[Sponsor Voice]

This is exactly right. Every business has an ambition. PayPal open is the platform designed to help you grow into yours with business loans so you can expand and access to hundreds of millions of PayPal customers worldwide. And your customers can pay all the ways they want with PayPal, Venmo, pay later and all major cards so you can focus on scaling up when it's time to get growing. There's one platform for all business PayPal open grow today at paypalopen.com loans subject to approval in available locations.

[Producer/Host]

This episode is brought to you by IQ Bar, our exclusive snack and hydration sponsor. IQ Bar is the better for you Plant protein based snack made with brain boosting nutrients to refuel, nourish and satisfy hunger without the sugar crash. The Ultimate Sampler Pack is a great way to try all IQ bar products and flavors. You get nine IQ bars, eight IQ mix sticks and four IQ Joe sticks. All IQ bar products are entirely free from gluten, dairy, soy GMOs and artificial sweeteners. With over 20,000 five star reviews and counting, more people than ever are starting their days on the right foot with IQ Bars, Brain and Body Boosting Bars, Hydration mixes and mushroom coffees. I always feel like I have to have something to perk me up in the afternoon. IQ Bars are really convenient and they taste great. And right now IQ Bar is offering our special podcast listeners 20% off all IQ products plus get free shipping. To get your 20% off, just text Bones to 64,000. Text Bones to 64,000. That's B O N E S to 64,000. Message and data rates may apply. See Terms for details. This show is sponsored by Better Help. When life gets overwhelming, who do you turn to? Maybe it's a friend or a family member. Talking helps, but a licensed therapist has.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

The training to help you work through.

[Producer/Host]

What'S weighing on you, not just listen. BetterHelp has over 30,000 therapists and has helped more than 5 million people worldwide, making it the largest online therapy platform out there. And it works with an average rating of 4.9 out of 5 for a live session based on over 1.7 million client reviews. BetterHelp is convenient too. You can join a session with a.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Therapist at the click of a button.

[Producer/Host]

Helping you fit therapy into your busy life. Plus switch therapists at any time. Sometimes you need to talk to someone.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Who doesn't have some stake in whatever you're discussing. I think everyone can benefit from therapy.

[Producer/Host]

As the largest online therapy provider in the world, BetterHelp can provide access to mental health Professionals with a diverse variety of expertise find the one with better help. Our listeners get 10% off their first [e-mail] buriedbones that's better. H E L P.com buried bones.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

I'm Kate Winkler Dawson. I'm a journalist who spent the last 25 years writing about true crime.

[Paul Holes]

And I'm Paul Holes, a retired cold case investigator who's worked some of America's most complicated cases and solved them.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Each week I present Paul with one of history's most compelling true crimes.

[Paul Holes]

And I weigh in using modern forensic techniques to bring new insights to old mysteries.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Together, using our individual expertise, we're examining.

[Producer/Host]

Historical true crime cases through a 21st century lens.

[Paul Holes]

Some are solved and some are cold. Very cold.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

This is Buried Bones. Hey Paul.

[Paul Holes]

Hey, Kate, how are you?

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

I'm doing well. We've got Easter coming up. What kind of Easter traditions do you guys have? I mean, do you celebrate Easter?

[Paul Holes]

First of all, you know, we would do at when the kids were younger, we would do the Easter basket and hide the eggs type of thing. Even like when I was a kid, you know, I was born and raised Catholic, you know, so of course Easter was a big deal and going to mass and stuff. But my kids are older, I think my wife will get them some basket with chocolates in it and that's about it.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

They don't look for Easter eggs anymore? Not even like the plastic kind of Easter eggs?

[Paul Holes]

No, thank God.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Do you know that my mom would do hard boiled eggs and I would dye them and then she would hide them, but she would hide them, I feel like the night before and then they were sitting out until noon or 1 o' clock the next day and then she would use them for deviled eggs. And I think decades later I said, I don't think this is a good idea. Should boiled eggs sit out for that long? I mean, you know better than I do. That doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

[Paul Holes]

I don't know, because one of the interesting thing, you know, I eat a lot of eggs. You know, eggs are my staple for breakfast. But it's like here in the United States, we refrigerate our eggs. Over in Europe, they don't.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Yeah, true.

[Paul Holes]

You know, so if you boil them, you know, maybe there's no reason to have to keep them refrigerated. So maybe they're fine up to a certain point. I, I'm guessing that's all it is at this point.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

So my mom is kind of exonerated from having any bad poisoning Meat. After you say that, we could maybe, like, keep them outside. Issue number two with leaving the eggs out all night is we have so many raccoons and deer that jump our fence and bugs and dirt and snakes and everything. I still say it was bad parenting. I love my mom, but that was not a great idea, I feel like, because she would hide an egg and then she. She didn't know where the egg went. And I said, that's because a raccoon probably took it. And now you want me to eat it?

[Paul Holes]

Yeah, no, for sure. But, man, you're harsh. Bad parenting, huh?

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Oh, maybe not. Parenting fail, boy, I do. Parenting fails pretty much constantly, I think. Every day. I think I. About an hour and a half ago, actually.

[Paul Holes]

I think we all do, actually.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

So we hide plastic eggs, and the kids, you know, will hunt around for them and stuff. And they still do it. And, you know, we'll have sort of a traditional Easter afternoon dinner. We're not religious at all, so it's mostly about the bunny rabbit. My grandfather, who was my dad's father, lived in Missouri. He was a carpenter, and he was married to my granny for decades and decades and decades. And they were the ones, I feel like I told you. In another case, those were the grandparents who slept in separate beds, which I found even at 8. Weird. I didn't understand it. And, you know, they had twin beds, and they were on the other side of the room, which I don't know what that means. I mean, I would think they would be closer together, but they had twin beds. My papa had, like, a massive. It was like 4 acres garden, all vegetables. They had a root cellar, all this stuff in Missouri. And he used to tell me that he was going to sit outside with a gun and chase off the Easter bunny. Of course, I just thought, you're so mean. I mean, I know he was kind of a farmer type, but, I mean, I get it. You know, nobody wants their garden invaded. But the Easter bunny, really, Papa? Yeah.

[Paul Holes]

Well, at least he wasn't out on the porch with a shotgun when Santa Claus was going to come. Now we would have potentially a homicide.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Yeah. And absolutely. Well, I mean, you know that strange man creeping along your roof. Yes. He probably hadn't thought about that. He just wanted to scare me a little bit, I think. And I just thought, it's a bunny rabbit. Let him have the lettuce. I mean, you chased off animals. So I had an interesting family poll.

[Paul Holes]

Sounds like it.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Well, I am taking you to 1963, Arizona, and this is a case that on the surface seems, I think, fairly simple. But it was a landmark case and you'll find out why. I try to find stories where, you know, we can say this is the reason why we have X, Y and Z. Remember the story about the man who was accused of sexual assault sneaking into somebody house and he left his fingerprints in fresh paint? And that became the landmark case the first time that fingerprinting was introduced in court. So this is sort of that kind of case. So as we go along, you know, this case changes quite a bit to reflect why it's important today.

[Paul Holes]

Okay, well, relatively speaking, it's a more recent case.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

It's like brand new. It's like yesterday for us.

[Paul Holes]

Yeah, no, for sure. It's just, what, five, five years before I was born.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

So you keep dating yourself. I like a guy who does that though. I mean, you know, you're prob. Proud of your age and all that. Me too.

[Paul Holes]

It's better than the alternative, right?

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

And you know what? My mom says it. Now I'm gonna really give my mom some props. My mom says that every time, you know, she says, well, I have friends who don't want to disclose their age and I'm proud of it because, you know, a lot of people don't make it to, you know, my mom's age was about 80. She's going to be 82 this year. So I would be bragging about that too. Yeah, I'll brag about 50. 50. I'm happy to have made it this far.

[Paul Holes]

I've got you beat.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

You do? I know, I know.

[Paul Holes]

Yeah.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Okay, let's go ahead and set the scene for the story. We are, as I said before, in 1963, Arizona. This is going to be a landmark case. A warning. There is a lot involving a sexual assault. You all know that we try to handle this with a lot of sensitivity. And Paul does a great job talking about this, so I just wanna give you a warning straight off the top. So here is the crime. We're gonna jump right into it. Before midnight. Shortly before midnight, March 2, 1963, we are in Phoenix. An 18 year old woman is heading home from her job at the concession counter at a local movie theater. She takes a city bus to a stop that's about three blocks away from her home where she lives with her mother and her sister and her sister's husband. The time when this happened is a little murky because the woman says this happened before midnight on March 2. But the police filed the report on March 3, so it gets a little confusing. But we're gonna go with March 2nd.

[Paul Holes]

Okay?

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

She will be the victim of a sexual assault, and I am not going to identify her because it's 1963, and I would hope she's still around. So we're gonna leave out her name, but I don't think it's difficult to find in the 1960s. Phoenix is in the middle of a huge building boom, and she lives in a development that's still under construction. So the sidewalks are dark. They don't seem to have streetlights. She's coming home very late by herself. She can hear a car pulling up behind her. She kind of ignores it and keeps walking. The driver gets out of the car and he runs up behind her and grabs her by the waist. She says that he pressed something sharp up against the back of her neck. He says, if you don't scream, I won't hurt you. And she goes with him, and he puts her in the car's backseat. And before I kind of get to what happens, I wanted to ask a question because I feel like I don't know what the current guidance is. If you are approached by a stranger and he says, get into the car, and he does have a weapon or doesn't have a weapon, I feel like growing up, I heard, comply. That's how you stay alive. Because otherwise he'll shoot you right there or he'll force you in, and it'll be a really bad situation, even worse situation. But I feel also like I've heard quite a bit about no matter what you do, and I think this is what they teach in schools to kids. No matter what you do, don't get in a car with somebody. Fight, scream, whatever it is, even if they have a gun pointed at you, don't do it. So what's your understanding of what the guidance would be from safety experts with this?

[Paul Holes]

Well, it's not my understanding. I will tell you from my casework experience, you never, ever let yourself be taken to a secondary location. I don't care if they've got a gun. I don't care if they've got a knife. What they're going to do to you at that secondary location is going to be far worse than being shot or stabbed or killed at that contact spot. You know, with my other podcast, Small Town Dicks, with Yardley, Dan and Dave, Dan, Dave and I coming out of law enforcement, we all tell our listeners, don't go to a secondary location. Don't let yourself get bound. You know, if you are having somebody who is trying to force you into a Vehicle. You fight, you kick, you, you go dead weight. You make it as hard as possible, and you want to draw as much attention as possible. So somebody else can either come to your aid or at least get law enforcement rolling. And oftentimes the offender is not expecting that. He's thinking you're going to comply with the gun or the knife. And now all of a sudden, he's got a fight on his hands. He's got a lot of noise being made. There's a good chance that, that that offender will run off. Some won't.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Okay.

[Paul Holes]

You know, but that is, you know, straight up, because I've just seen what happens to victims when they go to a secondary location.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Well, luckily this woman survives, but her ordeal is awful. He has something sharp up against the back of her neck. He says, if you don't scream, I won't hurt you. He puts her in the back seat of his car, binds her ankles together with rope. He also ties her hands behind her back. He drives about 20 minutes into the desert. Remember, we're in Arizona. And he rapes her. And then he says something odd. He says, pray for me. And drops her back off in her neighborhood. You know, she of course, goes home, tells her family what happened. They call the police, doing all the right things. When the investigators come, she can give a description of the car, but not the make and model. And she says that the car was either gray or a light green sedan with a dark upholstered interior that has stripes, which is great that she sounds so specific there. But she can't give a description of the offender. I don't know if it's because of trauma or he's masked, but, you know, this is what ends up happening. So what do you think so far based on all of this?

[Paul Holes]

Well, there's plenty of examples where these sexually motivated offenders abduct their victims, sexually assault them, and then take them back either to the abduction location or to some other location and drop them off. At least within this offender's mind right now, he doesn't have the homicidal ideations, at least not yet. If he is unmasked and is letting this victim go. You know, that's interesting because he's not taking, you know, in 1963, most certainly would be aware that this victim is going to be talking to law enforcement and likely would be able to provide a pretty accurate description of him. So it kind of tells me a little bit about this offender that he's not being as careful as he should if he wants to continue to get away either get away with this particular crime or to continue to offend, you know, because this type of offense offender, you know, abducting strangers and, and sexually assaulting them, that generally is considered a predatory type crime. And they do that over and over and over again. In some ways he's, he's kind of almost rolling the dice and, and willingly so to where maybe, you know, especially with the statement pray for me, you know, he knows that he has a, a fantasy life that society does not agree with, that he's committing a crime, that he wants to be caught, but he's not willing to give himself up.

[Producer/Host]

The secret to a great outfit is having the right foundation. Honeylove makes bras and shapewear that are supportive, lightweight and designed to move with.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

You.

[Producer/Host]

Start every outfit with Honeylove and the rest falls into place. HoneyLove is an independent female founded brand. All HoneyLove products are intelligently designed by women who actually wear them. They recently launched their new Cloud Embrace bra. It's a wireless bra for people who love Underwire. This style is bound to sell out again, so don't wait to try it. HoneyLove Shapewear is designed to move with you. It uses targeted compression to enhance your curves instead of squeeze them. It's designed to work with your body, not against it. Treat yourself to the most advanced bras and shapewear on the market. Save 20% off [e-mail] buried Use our exclusive link to get 20% off off honeylove.com buried to find your perfect fit. After you purchase, they ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them we sent you. Experience the new standard in bras and shapewear with honeylove. This episode is brought to you by IQ Bar, our exclusive snack and hydration sponsor. IQ Bar is the better for you. Plant protein based snack made with brain boosting nutrients to refuel nourishment and satisfy hunger without the sugar crash. The Ultimate Sampler pack is a great way to try all IQ bar products and flavors. You get nine IQ bars, eight IQ mix sticks and four IQ Joe sticks. All IQ bar products are entirely free from gluten, dairy, soy GMOs and artificial sweeteners. With over 20,000 five star reviews and counting, more people than ever are starting their days on the right foot with IQ Bars, Brain and body boosting bars, hydration mixes and mushroom coffees. I always feel like I have to have something to perk me up in the afternoon.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

IQ Bars are really convenient and they.

[Producer/Host]

Taste great and right now IQ Bar is offering our special podcast listeners 20% off all IQ products plus get free shipping. To get your 20% off, just text Bones to 64,000. Text Bones to 64,000. That's B O N E S to 64,000. Message and data rates may apply. See terms for details.

[Sponsor Voice]

Every business has an ambition. PayPal open is the platform designed to help you grow into yours with business loans so you can expand and access to hundreds of millions of PayPal customers worldwide. And your customers can pay all the ways they want with PayPal, Venmo, pay later, and all major cards so you can focus on scaling up when it's time to get growing. There's one platform for all business PayPal open grow today at paypalopen.com loans subject to approval in available locations.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Okay, what happens next disturbs me. Of course, you know, anything involving a sexual assault disturbs me. But what the police do next, I had not heard, and maybe you have. The survivor goes to the station to be interviewed, and they make her take a polygraph test.

[Producer/Host]

Have you heard that before?

[Paul Holes]

I hate to say it, but this is an era in which law enforcement did a lot of victim blaming. I saw it over and over again from cases out of the 1960s, 1970s. And here, right off the bat, they're telling this victim, well, you gotta prove yourself that you're telling the truth. Right. It. It very much was this misogynistic type of mentality that law enforcement had back in the day. And remember, 1963, law enforcement's all male, very few females are working. There almost was a mindset. Well, you shouldn't have dressed that way. And that is what's happening to this victim here.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Yeah. First of all, let's go back and talk about polygraph tests in general, which we know are unreliable. From American Sherlock. You know, I can't remember what year it was, but it was like 1925. I think that in that time period where even the Supreme Court said these should not be admitted in court, you know, this is not reliable enough, because so much can change. Your heart rate, your pulse, everything can change based on medication, how you're feeling that day. I mean, you know, a host of things that can't be attributed to lying. I think you and I have talked about that. It's an effective interrogation technique, but certainly not something that can point definitively to someone's guilt.

[Paul Holes]

It's a tool.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Yeah.

[Paul Holes]

That's all it is. You know, and. And, you know, polygraphers will, you know, pretty much defend their results, but also they Recognize the variables that can skew the results. Oftentimes what we get in an investigation from a polygraph because the, the person that's being hooked up to the instrument, they now are in a position to where, oh, they're going to know if I'm lying. And so sometimes certain individuals will now tell the truth. Other individuals will just straight up continue to lie. But it locks them into statements. And some of the most valuable investigative statements come out of the polygraph interview. You get questioned while you're hooked up to the instrument. Polygrapher goes off, he comes back, he's got instrument readouts. And he says, okay, Paul, you answered these questions, right, but I have concern about this question. The next thing you know, somebody is just like, well, you know, trying to make something up in order to say why the instrument is thrown off. And then a discussion follows. And next thing you know, they're making admissions, which now the homicide investigators or sexual assault investigators go, okay, we got the right guy. Now we need to do. We need to do some follow up. It's a tool, you know, there's no way you can, you know, affect an arrest based off of failing a polygraph.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Well, it is inconclusive. And in 2005, I thought this was interesting. In 2005. Right. So 20 years ago, the Violence Against Women act withdrew some federal funding from states that still required rape survivors to take polygraph tests. So this is what's stunning to me. As it stands, at least 25 states have, have since banned this practice. This leaves the other states who still do it. And that's incredible to me. I just had never heard that before. So it's good to know that this is something that gives me a lot of context. This is something that happened in the past.

[Paul Holes]

And I do just want to say, obviously when you have a victim come in, you have to listen to that victim and take what they are saying as being fact. Right? This is what they experienced. However, we do have victims lie. They make up things, you know. And so as you investigate, if you do find out this victim is likely lying, then of course you have to figure out, well, what is going on here? But to treat like in, in this case, this victim straight off the bat to hook somebody up to a polygraph before even hearing what happened and starting the investigation, it's just straight up wrong.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Right? And she's not accusing anybody yet. I mean, it's not like there's some wealthy, you know, young man whose life is on the line because this woman is accusing him of something. There, there isn't even an investigation yet. This is her, you know, contention. So. Okay, let's move on. So there was a detailed interior description of the car, but not the exterior. But the description of the car matches descriptions that have been given to the police in reports of other assaults. She says it was a gray or a light green sedan with dark upholstered interior that had stripes. I mean, that still seems kind of vague, but people who have been survivors of other similar attacks are coming back with the same description of the car. So does that seem reliable to you? I mean, police are gonna really lean into this too.

[Paul Holes]

Well, I think in terms of, you know, is it reliable necessarily to be able to link these crimes together? Conclusively, no. You know, what is the prevalence of this style interior at this point in time? But in terms of. This is a detail of if these, if these crimes are similar enough to where these, all these victims are saying, I was inside the offender's vehicle and this is what the interior of the vehicle looked like, then it is a characteristic where you have to consider this may be the same offender. Now, if you have other behaviors, how these women are abducted, you know, how he is sexually assaulting them, what his appearance is like, and all these seem to be within sort of a. You'd say it's a bracket. You know, in terms of each characteristic falls within a certain a bracket where it doesn't deviate too much from each other. Then you go, okay, there's a good likelihood that we have a serial rapist on the loose here.

[Producer/Host]

Fall is here, and it's the perfect time to update your wardrobe with pieces that feel great and look even better. Quince makes it simple to stay warm, look sharp, and save while you do it. Quince has all the elevated essentials for fall. Think 100% Mongolian cashmere from $50. Washable silk tops and skirts, and perfectly tailored denim. The best part, everything with Quince is half the cost of similar brands. And Quint's only works with factories that use saf ethical and responsible manufacturing practices and premium fabrics and finishes.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

I think my favorite, favorite thing is this lightweight cotton cashmere V neck sweater, which is the one I have that I love is charcoal gray. And actually I have a black one too.

[Producer/Host]

Keep it classy and cozy this fall with long lasting staples from Quince. Right now go to quince.com bones to get free shipping and 365 day returns on your next order. That's Q U I n c e.com for free shipping and 365 day returns.

[Sponsor Voice]

Quince.com bones every business has an ambition. PayPal open is the platform designed to help you grow into yours with business loans so you can expand and access to hundreds of millions of PayPal customers worldwide. And your customers can pay all the ways they want with PayPal, Venmo, pay later and all major cards so you can focus on scaling up when it's time to get growing. There's one platform for all business PayPal open grow today at paypalopen.com loans subject to approval in available locations.

[Sponsor Voice 2]

Time for a sofa upgrade? Visit washablesofas.com and discover Annabe where designer style meets budget friendly prices. With sofas starting at $699, Annabe brings you the ultimate in furniture innovation with a modular design that allows you to rearrange your space effortlessly. Perfect for both small and large spaces, Anibe is the only machine washable sofa inside and out. Say goodbye to stains and messes with liquid and stain resistant fabrics that make cleaning easy. Liquid simply slides right off. Designed for custom comfort, our high resilience foam lets you choose between a sink in feel or a supportive memory foam blend. Plus our pet friendly stain resistant fabric bricks ensure your sofa stays beautiful for years. Don't compromise quality for price. Visit washablesofas.com to upgrade your living space today with no risk returns and a 30 day money back guarantee. Get up to 60% off plus free shipping and free returns. Shop now at washablesofas.com Offers are subject to change and certain restrictions may apply.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

So the police cannot find this car and about a week later after this woman's attack, this woman's brother in law has been escorting her to and from the bus ever since the rape happened. At some point he spots a car that matches his sister in law's description. The car leaves before the woman's bus arrives, but comes back once the woman and the brother in law are there together. She confirms that it looks like the right car and he runs after it. But the car speeds away once he sees somebody is chasing him and the brother in law, thank goodness, jots down a partial plate number. This car turns out to be a 1953 Packard and it's registered to a woman, but she lives with a man who is 23 and his name is Ernesto. I can tell you about Ernesto. I can talk about what ends up happening when police locate him. And remember, this is a very significant case and you're gonna find out in just a bit.

[Paul Holes]

Well, I think, you know, I think the first comment is that, you know, the victim being Able to say, hey, that looks like the car. It's basically okay. This looks like the make and model car that the offender used that she was put into. And I'm assuming that they must have been close enough to the vehicle possibly to be able to see. Oh, it's got the, the striped upholstery on the inside.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Yes.

[Paul Holes]

So she's not saying that guy looks like the guy that sexually assaulted me. She's saying that looks like the car. Okay, so it's most certainly something where it's okay, that's good. Now we have an understanding of the make and model that the offender was using potentially. And a 1953 Packard. You know, I'm, I know of the Packard vehicles. I don't think they were exceptionally common, but that would be something that I would be kind of wanting to know as an investigator is okay, so is this just a, you know, we have a ton of these, you know, driving around the city, or is this something that is relatively rare? That I don't know, but I would want, I would be wanting to dig into that before I put a lot of weight on. You know, the person that has access to this vehicle is possibly her attacker. So that's probably the first observation that I have. And then, you know, the registered owner being a, a woman. Well, we know a woman isn't the one that is attacking the victim, but we have a 23 year old male, you know, Arnesto. So now based off of the, what the victim could recount about her offender, does this Arnesto seem to, to match? I know you said that she could not remember much about the physical characteristics of this offender.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Yeah, not at all. I mean, she said at the time that she couldn't recall anything specific.

[Paul Holes]

But for law enforcement, there seems to be other cases that are matching this victim's case in terms of the vehicle. So what are these other victims saying about the, you know, the physical characteristics of their offender? And does Ernesto match that? That's kind of what I would be looking at if I'm considering these cases as being related.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

I'll tell you because I do have descriptions of what happens in these other cases too. And we can kind of see that on March 13, 1963, the police come to his house, where he lives, Ernesto's house, and ask him to come down for questioning. According to the police, Ernesto is friendly and helpful, unbothered, and he talks freely with the police. This seems unusual to me and I don't know if he is the person. I don't know if this is Someone who thinks he can outsmart the police and, you know, just sort of kind of skate through this. But. But, you know, he is someone who does not seem alarmed by the fact that he's being brought in for questioning for it sounds like at least one sexual assault. And I'm assuming they're going to try to tie him to the others.

[Paul Holes]

Sure, but there are plenty of people that respond that way.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Okay.

[Paul Holes]

You really can't draw conclusions. You're just noting that he seems cooperative. You know, he does not seem nervous. So, you know, maybe he doesn't have anything to do with this, but then there are offenders that when they've been pulled in, that's the way they are.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Well, before I get to the interrogation, let me just tell you a little bit about him. He was born in Arizona to a very poverty stricken family. His mother died when he was young and he had a lot of brushes with the law. When he was a kid, he was sent to a reform school. When he was a teenager, he had some prior arrests in California, though he wasn't convicted. It doesn't sound like anything violent. He lived sort of an itinerant lifestyle in his late teens and early 20s, which means he hopped around from place to place and job to job. So he didn't have roots anywhere. He was convicted in Tennessee for driving a stolen car. When he is being questioned for the sexual assault by the Phoenix police, he's working nights on a loading dock for a produce company. And that's what we know about Ernesto. So, you know, the brushes with the law. We've talked about that before, that certain brushes with the law are alarming to you, at least when we talk about psychopathy and the potential for violence of somebody later on. But these things, you know, he's 23, stolen car, nothing violent. Is this anything that would alarm you as an investigator when you're looking at this case? Because right now all it is is he's got a car that people are saying might have been involved in, you know, the offender being a rapist.

[Paul Holes]

No, you know, all of it seems to be minor. You know, many people have this level of criminality, you know, so it doesn't mean. Doesn't point to anything that would indicate that, you know, he potentially is a serial rapist or capable of sexual assault.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Okay.

[Paul Holes]

If he has priors, as I think I've talked about before, if he has prior sexual assault, particularly sexual assaults on strangers, you know, predatory type crime, then that is more of a red flag in terms of his past criminality, indicating, okay, he's capable of this type of crime. And we know these types of offenders have a tendency to be recidivists. They have a tendency to continue committing these types of crimes.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Okay, now I'm gonna have questions about police conduct just in general, when you're interrogating somebody, whether this is sort of commonplace or not. Here's point number one, and you tell me what you think. They take Ernesto to a very small interrogation room. You know, they want to try to figure out if he's even the right guy, because he does not seem bothered at all that he's there. So it's described. This interrogation room is described more like a cubicle. 12ft squared cubicle, and they refer to it as the sweat room. Are you allowed water? Can you go to the bathroom? Is the one call still, one phone call still a thing?

[Paul Holes]

You know, when somebody's brought in to be interviewed, there is a. A level of expected treatment. You know, you're not bringing somebody in to, you know, put them in essentially a jail cell. Typically, yes. You know, part of a proper interview is where you're ensuring that the subject is reasonably comfortable. Today, law enforcement needs to be mindful of the suspect's perception. Now, under this circumstance, at this point time, I don't think you said he was arrested, he was asked to come down to the station. He is voluntarily there. In this day and age, under this set of circumstances, you know, at any point he can decide to get up and leave, and he has to have that perception of the capability to get up and leave when he is there voluntarily.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

So, smarty, tell me what Ernesto's last name is.

[Paul Holes]

Miranda.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Yep. This is the Miranda rights case. 1963.

[Paul Holes]

Yes.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

I can't believe it took till 1963 to sort all this out. But it's an interesting case.

[Paul Holes]

No, for sure, you know, but this. There is a reason, because of this case, why people that are in a custodial situation, whether it's they've been told that they are in custody or they perceive that they are in custody, that they need to be told their rights, and it's because of this case.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Well, now we're going to find out why. So he is questioned for two hours, and he denies the rape and several other crimes that police are trying to pin him on. Basically just. Just based on the description of his car, which does not seem like a wild description, but I guess it is. So they're trying to pin him on a bunch of different things. So police put him in a lineup. Now we need to talk about lineups. Police put him in a lineup and the young woman, the 18 year old who was raped, as well as another woman identify him out of four men. But they say they're not positive. I mean, my notes say that the young woman really couldn't give them a description. So I don't know what would have changed. And then talk about how lineups work. Are they the same as in the 60s?

[Paul Holes]

Well, see, well, and this is where whether you're dealing with a photo lineup or you're doing this in person type of lineup is nowadays there are criteria that these lineups have to meet in order for them to be to have any level of veracity in terms of if the victim, like in this case, is able to pick somebody out of the lineup, there isn't anything that would have swayed the victim to point at the person that law enforcement is considering the suspect. But let's say Ernesto is, you know, I don't know his size. Let's say he's five six, 150 pounds, clean shaven. And the other three men in this lineup are all above six foot and they have facial hair. You know, it's that type of thing. And those were some of the things that happening, you know, back in the day in order to get that witness or that victim to point at the person that law enforcement has kind of keyed in on. In order for law enforcement to write up a report saying suspect was picked out of a photo lineup. And now they're putting that in a probable cause affidavit for arrest for that crime.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

So let's talk about the other case. There was another woman who identified him in this lineup, but said, you know, I'm not 100% sure. The circumstances from her case were that she was grabbed at knifepoint while she was going to her car at night from her job as a bank teller. He put her in the front bench of her own car, drove a short distance, and she was assaulted, but not raped and robbed of $8. This seems different.

[Paul Holes]

It is tough when you have disparate crimes like this. Now you have an abduction of females. In both instances you have these females being kidnapped. They're being moved to a different location. Okay? There's similarities there. Just because one case doesn't end in sexual assault and it turns out to be essentially a robbery of $8, $8 is taken by force or fear by this offender. Serial rapists will also commit this type of crime and not sexually assault somebody. So you can't eliminate them as not being related. But I think to your point, yes, you can't necessarily say they are related because there isn't enough circumstances, behaviors, et cetera, that are unique enough to say, yes, this appears to be the same individual, the same offender. It's just something you have to consider. You know, offenders commit multiple types of crimes, so that's just what happens. And, you know, you take a look at Ernesto's criminal past. This robbery of $8 seems to be more in line with the types of petty crimes that he's committing. Even though the kidnap is serious, that's a massive, major felony that's going on there. But to take the $8 seems in line, like, with maybe some of these petty theft arrests that he possibly had in his criminal past.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Yeah, so remember, it was a lineup of Ernesto and three other men, and they said it looks like him, but we're not 100% sure. That's not what the police tell Ernesto. And they say that he has been positively identified by these two women, and he immediately confesses. Now two hours of interrogation. We don't know what that involved in. I don't know enough about Phoenix, Arizona, in the 60s, if this was the third degree or what happened. But he didn't break until these two women positively identified him. I know police can lie, right? I mean, how much can they lie? When you're interrogating somebody, when you're trying.

[Paul Holes]

To trap them, you can lie to the person you're talking to, you know, with the expectation that if the person's innocent, they will stand their ground and in essence, tell the interviewer you're wrong. You know, that wasn't me. I did not, you know, attack those women or whatever. But we do see with select types of suspects that will cave in to an interrogation when they are told lies, you know, so it is a balance. You know, that this is where you have. You have an offender. Hey, we've got your DNA. In this case, in this sexual assault, the innocent person is expected to say, I don't know how that got there. Now, guilty guys say the same thing, right? But you expect that person, the innocent person, to stand their ground. But then you have to evaluate the individual you're talking to. And we know individuals that are intellectually challenged, that have certain personalities, that are of a certain age, et cetera, are more susceptible to caving in, either to being under the influence of the interrogator or to caving into the circumstances. If I just tell them what they want to hear, maybe I'll be let go.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

I've heard of circumstances where people say they were interrogated for so long, almost days, where they start questioning whether they were involved or not. I don't remember the stat from the Innocence Project, but, but it's something like 25%, I think, of wrongful convictions come from false confessions.

[Paul Holes]

No, for sure. And it's interesting in California, so the Reid interview technique, which has been taught forever and it originated out of the Chicago area, has been shown to generate false confessions. And so in California, I know there's one da, I think it's El Dorado county da. I was listening to him at a conference talk about how he was championing banning the use of this Reed interrogation technique in California, and I think he was successful. I'm not entirely sure I know where, where that's at, in part because it does cause susceptible individuals to falsely confess to something they didn't do. You know, it's, it's just the way that these individuals are manipulated, you know, so it's, it's a balance. You know, you want to get the truth out of the person, and we know people will lie to protect themselves from the crimes that they've committed. So you have to somehow figure out way in order to get those facts out or at least get them to make statements that are incriminating that a prosecutor can use. But at what point do you draw the line in terms of what you're willing to do in order to get those statements out of that particular suspect?

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Well, this prosecutor you were talking about, can you draw briefly a contrast between the Reid interrogation technique and what should be done if you have somebody who's intellectually challenged? I mean, what's the different, what's the right and the wrong. What does the Reid technique do that's so manipulative that gets these wrongful convictions.

[Paul Holes]

Fundamentally sort of like what you're hearing here in the Miranda case in terms of, you know, very confrontational, making up these, these lies, you know, really trying to persuade the individual down a certain tract. You know, back in the day before this case, law enforcement was, was really heavy handed in terms of how they would interrogate individuals. He's talking about, you know, being, you know, kept awake for long hours while you are being questioned over and over again. And, and part of the, the questioning with this tactic is just re asking the questions over and over again over the course of many hours to where now the person's getting frustrated. And so now they're going to go, well, my cooperation up to this point isn't working. So now I'm going to give them what they want, you know, and now They' confessed to a crime. And then what I've seen, in fact, I, I consulted on an Innocence Project case, and I won't go into the details, but fundamentally, what law enforcement was doing back in the day, and this was not back in 1963, this is back in the 1990s, but this particular agency, with this particular couple of interviewers, what they do is they, in essence tell the, the, the suspect the details and make the suspect tell those details about the crime back. And then the investigator is the one that's typing up, this is what the suspect said, and there's no recording. And then they make the, the suspect sign that. You, you told us this, right? Yes, I told you that. And they, that suspect just now has confessed to a crime. And it's just, it is so inappropriate.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Well, what's hard about this case of Ernesto Miranda is he is guilty. He's about to give a full confession. Not only that, he's going to identify the woman that he attacked, but, you know, the way that the police handle it and what they have him sign, we have to get a little technical here. That's why this case was so important. So he signs a form. He says in the form he's 23. His highest level of education is a grade. And this is his written statement. He said, seen a girl walking up the street, stopped a little ahead of her, got out of the car, walked toward her, grabbed her by the arm and asked her to get in car. Got in car without force, tied her hands and ankles, drove away for a few miles, stopped, asked to take clothes off. Did not. Asked me to take her home. I started to take clothes off without any force and with cooperation. Asked her to lay down. And she did. Could not get penis into vagina. Got about half an inch in, told her to get clothes back on, drove her home. And I couldn't say I was sorry for what I had done, but I asked for her to pray for me. So that's what he said. And on the form he wrote the statement on, it said, with full knowledge of my rights, even though he was never informed of any rights. And that's where this case is. So what do you think about that? First, his confession. What do you think about the confession?

[Paul Holes]

Did he write the confession?

[Producer/Host]

Well, here's the thing, Paul.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

I mean, we have a verbatim. There's no punctuation, almost no punctuation in here, you know, and I don't know if he actually wrote it, wrote it at eighth grade. You would think he would be able to, but It's, I don't know. You're right. It's hard to tell.

[Paul Holes]

Well, this sort of like that Innocence Project is, you know, what had he been told about the crime? When I'm assessing statements, and I do this all the time in cold cases cases is I'm assessing, okay, what, what did law enforcement know? How did they know it? Is this something that during interviews, law enforcement, during their interrogative phase, they're now confronting him with facts. And you know this fact, you tried to rape her, but you only could get in so far. Well, now he's fed that detail. At what point during the interview is the, the, the person being interviewed bringing up this level of detail? And I know when I evaluate a case, I'm often taking a look at the crime scene and the physical evidence and interpreting that. And many investigators don't know how to interpret, you know, do like a crime scene reconstruction. So they never bring those types of details up to the suspect that they're talking to. But when I see a suspect say something during that interview that matches up with what I am seeing in the physical evidence, I'm going, okay. Oh, he literally knows something that even the investigators don't know. Now I'm putting a ton of veracity on that type of detail. So, you know, statement analysis in terms of assessing, you know, like what Ernesto is saying, you know, that's where, okay, who's writing this? At what stage is he writing this is towards the end of the interrogation. Was this recorded? Was this, were these details that he was fed by the detectives during an interrogation? And now he's just regurgitating because he just wants to be done. Remember what I said? You know, there's select individuals in our society that are more susceptible to these types of interrogative tactics and will falsely confess. One of those is going to be that kind of, that limited intellectual aspect. Ernesto has an 8th grade education and he's 23 years old. He's satisfying one of those characteristics of, yeah, he might be susceptible. Now, I'm not saying, you know, that he's innocent of these crimes, but what I am saying is that there's a reason why this became a landmark case.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Well, let me tell you how we keep going here. He identifies the 18 year old woman that we started the story with, who he sexually assaulted. And then he said, I also did a robbery and an attempted robbery. He said, in both of those cases, the women had been assaulted but escaped before being raped. The robbery was $8, and he took it from a survivor who was a Bank teller. After the statement, he's arrested and booked in the Maricopa County Jail. And the prosecutor ends up filing charges on the rape and the robbery. Not like the attempted robbery. So there were three cases that they were interested in with him. Again, the detail about the bank teller and, and a couple of other details, but. Right. Because this is a Miranda case, the Miranda case, we have to think about what investigators did to get this information. So they're untrustworthy, unfortunately.

[Paul Holes]

Well, and part of what I want to hear from Miranda as he's giving his statements is I want to hear his perspective on how the crime was committed. Not what I'm hearing. You telling me is, well, these are the types of statements that the victim would be saying. I want to hear his perspective. I initially saw this victim at this location. I followed her until we got to this particular location. I got out, I went around this corner of the front of my car. You know, something where he's walking through, committing the crime versus regurgitating. She was a bank teller. Well, law enforcement knows she's a bank teller, Right? Yeah. Know, I need to hear something sort of outside of, of what I've heard so far. I, you know, of course I'm familiar with, you know, why Miranda exists. I'm not real familiar with the crimes that Miranda committed. To get to the point where now we have this landmark case.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Right. I'll tell you more about these trials. There's two trials because remember, there is a, a robbery and then there's the rape. So he goes on trial for the robbery first in June of 1963. It takes a day. He has a court appointed attorney who files a motion indicating that he intends to plead insanity. And the court has two psychiatrists examine him. One of the psychiatrists says that he has an emotional illness that the psychiatrist classifies as a, quote, schizophrenic reaction of the chronic undifferentiated to type. At the same time, he concludes that Miranda was unaware of his actions but aware that he did something wrong. Meantime, the other psychiatrist says he's just immature and unstable and he doesn't see any evidence of psychosis. So we have the arresting officer and the woman who was robbed testify and the jury comes back with a unanimous guilty verdict. That afternoon they're waiting on what happens with the rape trial to deal with sentencing. And the rape trial is the next time. I want to definitely talk about the diagnosis from one of the psychiatrists about schizophrenia because, you know, you are talking about vulnerable people and being subjected to unethical interrogation. Techniques. So, so far, what are you hearing in this? Because he confessed to the robbery as well as, you know, these other crimes too?

[Paul Holes]

Yeah, you know, it's. It's really tough, you know, to assess kind of the mental health aspect and how that plays into this case. Most certainly, I'm familiar with schizophrenia, but in terms of wherever he's at, along sort of this spectrum of schizophrenia, he's 23. We know generally in the early 20s. Oftentimes this is when schizophrenia starts to manifest itself and then it progresses from that point. Point. I can only right now speculate from my vantage point that, yeah, schizophrenia may be something that would influence Miranda in terms of how he interacts under an interrogative setting. I mean, that is way outside my level of expertise. For me, when I'm assessing, let's say, crime and we start talking psychosis, you know, a psychotic offender, a true disorganized offender that has mental health issue that is so extreme they're unaware that they are committing a crime that is wrong. This is your true insanity. I can't form any type of opinion. Does, you know, Miranda fall within that type of offender? You have one of the psychiatrists saying he's not at the level of a psychosis. Right. I think that's what you say said. However, both psychiatrists, though somewhat different in their opinions, are saying he's. He does have some sort of mental health aspect to him, you know, and so that kind of underscores from my perspective, okay, he is a vulnerable suspect. And so the interview of somebody like that needs to be handled in a different way than likely. It was handled in terms of a hardcore interrogation.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Here's the rape trial. It happens the next day. The defense tries to shake the survivor's story. She is very consistent and believable. The lawyer, for lack of a better phrase, completely fucks up his attorney. So states Exhibit 1 is Miranda's signed statement which admitted to the rape.

[Producer/Host]

But his own attorney calls it a confession.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

No one else in the court has called it a confession. They say it's a statement. So the prosecutor at the very end, in his closing statement set, even his own attorney says he's confessed. And this is that. Yeah, so, I mean, this will, of course, set up a pretty decent appeal for Miranda. But the defense doesn't dispute the validity of this confession statement thing. And within minutes, the jury comes back with a guilty verdict. And he's sentenced to 20 to 30 years for each count, the kidnapping and the rape. And he's also sentenced to 25 years for the robbery. Robbery. If this man's last name were not Miranda, this would be the end of our story. But in the 60s, lawyers and activists had already started being critical of, you know, what the constitutional rights are when you are being interrogated by the police. And that's why this case turns into a big case. So in 63, the original lawyer who defended Miranda is a guy named Alvin Moore. He files an appeal, and there are other cases involving coerced or improperly attained confessions that have drawn a lot of national attention and established the right for an attorney during interrogations under the Sixth Amendment. So Moore's basis for this appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court is that his confession was improperly received as evidence. The state Supreme Court disagrees, and they uphold the conviction. But there is a lot more happening here where eventually, I mean, just to kind of shorthand this, this, you know, this takes a very windy road, and the ACLU gets involved. There's another case in California with the California Supreme Court, and that court ruled that before a suspect is interrogated, he has to be expressly informed of his right to an attorney. And Miranda wasn't. So Arizona and California were contradicting each other on the matter of constitutional law. And this is where Robert Corcoran, the retired attorney to, decides to step in, and he takes over the case. Now, do you want to do a shorthand of what happens or what do you. I mean, this is such a massive case. We don't know if he's guilty, but it sure sounds like it to me. But that's not the point. You know, the point is establishing your rights. You know, and everybody, even guilty people, need rights.

[Paul Holes]

I know of the Miranda case, but in terms of the legal path up to the Supreme Court, Court, not familiar with that at all. You know, fundamentally, my training when I was with law enforcement was with Miranda. Of course, you're informing the person that you're interviewing of their rights, their right to remain silent, the right to have an attorney. But the primary criteria that impacts law enforcement needing to inform this person of their rights is the custodial status. Status. Is this person in custody, which means they are not free to leave, or does a person have perception of custody? And I believe this isn't necessarily addressed under the Miranda case. There's other case law related to perception of custody. So as an example, the way you set, let's say, a suspect up in an interview room, and now you have two big burly detectives, detectives that are between that suspect and the door, and that suspect has just been told, you can leave Any time. But he has to push through these two cops. Maybe one of the cops is in uniform. That person has a perception, I'm not free to leave. So under that set of circumstances, this is where now law enforcement is going. Okay. Generally good. You know, and there's a balance. You know, you don't want to Mirandize somebody if you don't have to. To where now. You just have told this person, shut up. You want this person to cooperate. But if you recognize, okay, this person is talking to me voluntarily, and they're free to leave. But there might be a perception that on their part that they're not free to leave because maybe the way our station house is set up, you know, you err on the side of caution and you Mirandize him. Right. And hope that that person is still going to want to be able to cooperate and provide statements so you can further your investigation. There's almost a tactical way of having to approach. You have to assess your suspect, the situation that you're talking to the suspect, and whether or not it truly does require to Mirandize them or not. Or is it in the gray area?

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Yep.

[Paul Holes]

And then generally, it's sort of like you better err on the side of caution, because if you don't, pretty much you have just killed the case if they find out that you should have Mirandized them.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

This goes all the way to the Supreme Court, and there has to be clarity because there are a lot of cases that are now coming forward where people are saying you're talking about intimidation with the police. A lot of the arguments are, I'm not educated enough to know, you know, Paul Holz, the banker, probably knows his rights, but Miranda didn't. And so what? The Supreme Court eventually votes five to four, you know, in favor of. They essentially say that if the Constitution only protects Americans who are educated in enough to know their rights, then not all Americans are protected. So, you know, this is, like I said, a 5 to 4 decision. And in response, police departments across the country give out those cards to their personnel with language to inform suspects of their rights. You know, the Supreme Court didn't prescribe any specific language, but this is where the little speech that the police will give you if you're under arrest, Miranda's conviction is overturned. And that drives me crazy. But he goes on trial again in Arizona in 1967. This is only for the rape and the kidnapping. Since the robbery didn't go to the Supreme Court and his original confession is not admitted as evidence, he is tried under a False name. Because Miranda is very famous now. And his estranged girlfriend, the woman who had been living with him, testifies against him. And he has found guilty and sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison. Eventually, he applies and is denied parole four times. He is granted in 1972 parole, so he serves about nine years in prison, and he violates his parole with a lot of misdemeanors, goes back to prison for another five years. He's released in 75, and he is stabbed to death at a Bar in 1970 after he's released.

[Paul Holes]

You know, that sounds vaguely familiar. I think I may have heard that at some point. But most certainly most of what you just told me about, you know, Miranda's back and forth with prison and parole, I did not know.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Yeah. So, you know, he ends up at this bar, and he gets into an argument, and he's stabbed in the chest, in the neck, and he dies within minutes. You know, I mean, a little side note, they find the guy who did it. They inform him of his rights in Spanish because he doesn't speak English. So that's how evolved they became. So they inform him of his rights in Spanish, and he waives his rights, and he tells police, you know, that he didn't do it, and they don't arrest him. So, I mean, the irony here is he waives his rights, he denies that he did this. He had some injuries, and the police let him go. And when they go back to find him again, when employees say we can identify him, he's gone. He's in Mexico.

[Paul Holes]

And this is the suspect in Miranda's homicide?

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Yes. So he's gone where his family lives, he's in the wind. So the murderer of Ernesto Miranda, you know, no one was ever arrested for the murder of Ernesto Miranda. And I mean, this story, of course, I'm familiar with Miranda rights, but I did not know the backstory of it. I know this is not our traditional true crime, but like I said, I. I'm always interested in why cases are, you know, case laws established and, you know, where different things come from in our history. And this was an interesting case.

[Paul Holes]

Well, yeah, no, for sure. It's a landmark case. It's, you know, it's one of those things, you know, there's. For law enforcement, there are select individuals. You know, just whether they're patrol guys or investigators, they love staying on top of the case law. And they often. I can think of one guy who was a DA investigator. He would give training to the other investigators. Hey, this is the current. This was just a Supreme Court decision, or here's a California appellate decision, because you need to know, know, you know, what changes. You go through the police academy and you're told about Miranda, but then there's other case law that have modified Miranda. Right. So you have to stay on top of that. And there are people that fortunately that do that and that of course, you know, the, the prosecutors, your attorneys are the ones that are really the experts, you know, so if law enforcement, if an investigator ever has a question about, about the legality of, let's say, a certain type of search, you know, you ring up your local prosecutor and you run the facts by them and say, hey, does this work?

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

You know, before you do it and you screw something up?

[Paul Holes]

Absolutely. You know, and, and, and that's where, you know, one of the reasons I enjoy the cold case side is things are slow. They're slow moving. Right. They're decades old.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

You don't have that public pressure. Right.

[Paul Holes]

You don't have, you know, I don't think people truly appreciate whether it's a officer that's responding to an act of crime or investigator investigating an act of crime, how many decisions they have to make on the fly. And they have to make those decisions based on what the current case law is. It's not something that they necessarily have received a bunch of training on, you know, so this is part of the, the evolution as you go through your career of seeing how laws change over time. And it's not necessarily in the penalty code. It's something that is now, you know, the attorney for the sheriff's office has said, hey, there's new California Supreme Court has just come out with this. And so even though you've been doing it this way up until today, tomorrow you needed to do it this way, you know, and you have to make that adjustment or you potentially could have a case thrown out.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Yeah, well, like I said, not our normal type of story, but important. And I love learning about where things come from. Next week, I can almost guarantee we're not going to be talking about Miranda rights, probably because from the 1800s and they didn't have any rights. You'd be lucky to survive interrogation. But, you know, we will have a case that definitely has some deep history. So I hope you look forward to it, Paul.

[Paul Holes]

I always do. And another great job today. Kate, thank you very much.

[Producer/Host]

Thank you, Paul.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

See you next week.

[Paul Holes]

Sounds good.

[Producer/Host]

This has been an exactly right production.

[Paul Holes]

For our sources and show notes, go to exactlyrightmedia.com buriedbones sources.

[Producer/Host]

Our senior producer is Alexis Amorosi research.

[Paul Holes]

By Maren McLachen, Ali Elkin and Kate Winkler Dawson.

[Producer/Host]

Our mixing engineer is Ben Talladay.

[Paul Holes]

Our theme song is by Tom Bright.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Our artwork is by Vanessa Lilac, Executive.

[Paul Holes]

Produced by Karen Kilgariff, Georgia Hardstark and Danielle Kramer.

[Producer/Host]

You can follow Buried Bones on Instagram.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

And Facebook@ buriedbones pod.

[Paul Holes]

Kate's most recent book, all that Is A Gilded Age Story of Murder and the Race to Decode the Criminal Mind.

[Kate Winkler Dawson]

Is available now and Paul's best selling memoir, Unmasked My Life Solving America's Cold Cases is also available now.

[Paul Holes]

Listen to Barry bones on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts.

[BetterHelp Ad Voice]

This is an ad by BetterHelp. We've all had that epic rideshare experience halfway through your best friends and they know your aspirations to go find yourself. Important, Magical. It's human. We're all looking for someone to listen, but not everyone is equipped to help. With over a decade of experience, BetterHelp matches you with the right therapist. See why they have a 4.9 rating out of 1.7 million client session reviews? Visit betterhelp.com for 10% off your first month.

[Sponsor Voice]

Every business has an ambition. PayPal Open is the platform designed to help you grow into yours with business loans so you can expand and access to hundreds of millions of PayPal customers worldwide. And your customers can pay all the ways they want with PayPal, Venmo pay later and all major cards so you can focus on scaling up when it's time to get growing. There's one platform for all business PayPal open grow today at paypalopen.com loans subject to approval in available locations.

[Sponsor Voice 2]

Tired of spills and stains on your sofa? WashablesOfAs.com has your best back featuring the Annabe Collection, the only designer sofa that's machine washable inside and out. Where designer quality meets budget friendly prices. That's right, sofas start at just $699. Enjoy a no risk experience with pet friendly stain resistant and changeable slipcovers made with performance fabrics. Experience cloud like comfort with high resilience foam that's hypoallergenic and never need fluffing. The sturdy steel frame ensures longevity and the modular pieces can be rearranged anytime. Check out washablesofas.com and get up to 60% off your annabe sofa backed by a 30 day satisfaction guarantee. If you're not absolutely in love, send it back for a full refund. No return shipping or restocking fees. Every penny back Upgrade [e-mail] Offers are subject to change and certain restrictions may apply.