← Everything Everywhere Daily: History, Science, Geography & More
Everything Everywhere Daily: History, Science, Geography & More
Miranda Rights: Why You Have the Right to Remain Silent
00:14:59
Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:01]
A
Few phrases in American law are more familiar than you have the right to remain silent. They're spoken in police stations, on city streets, and in countless movies and television shows. Yet behind those words was a real criminal case, a controversial Supreme Court decision, and a legal rule that changed policing in the United States. It's a story about confessions, constitutional rights, and the limits of police interrogation. Learn more about Miranda Rights on this episode of Everything Everywhere Daily. This episode is sponsored by Drip Drop Travel, Exercise, heat, long days and even just forgetting to drink enough water can all leave you feeling drained. And when that happens, water alone isn't always enough. That's where Drip Drop comes in. Drip Drop uses science based formulas for rapid hydration so you feel results fast while getting three times the electrolytes of leading sports drinks. It has six key electrolytes as well as 15 essential vitamins and nutrients. Drip Drop comes in a variety of flavors including zero sugar options, and it's trusted by athletes, medical professionals, first responders, and people who simply want to stay better hydrated. I use the zero sugar version and it tastes great. Right now, Dripdrop is offering my podcast listeners 20% off their first order. Go to dripdrop.com and use promo code everything. That's dripdrop.com promo code everything for 20% off. Stock up now@dripdrop.com and use promo code everything. This episode is sponsored by Hexclad. Over a year ago, I invested in a set of Hexclad cookware. I got a griddle, a stock pot and two frying pans and I have been loving it and I use it almost every single day in my house. Hexclad completely changed the game by combining the performance of stainless steel with the convenience of non stick in a single pan. Hexclad gives you a proper sear, great heat control and cleanup that doesn't turn into a whole second job after dinner. After I cook something, cleanup is a simple matter of wiping it off or just doing some very light scrubbing. I'm no Gordon Ramsay when it comes to cooking, but there is a good reason why Gordon Ramsay uses Hexclad both at home and in his restaurants. Don't go through another summer with cookware that makes every meal harder than it needs to be. For just a limited time only, my listeners get 10% off their order. With my exclusive link, just head to hexclad.comdaily support the show and check them out@hexclad.com daily. Make sure to let them know I sent you. If you haven't been arrested or even if you don't live in the United States, you've probably seen enough movies and television to know the phrase you have the right to remain silent. This is not an invention of Hollywood. They derive from the rights provided in the US Constitution. But the particular application that you are familiar with stems from one of the most famous Supreme Court decisions in American history. Miranda rights are fundamentally intertwined with the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the U.S. constitution. The Fifth Amendment says no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on the presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service, in time of war or public danger nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. The Sixth Amendment in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation to be confronted with witnesses against him to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. The origin of Miranda rights can be traced back to the U.S. supreme Court case of Miranda v. Arizona in 1966. On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested by police in Phoenix, Arizona. Miranda had a complicated history with the law, having previous juvenile convictions and arrests as well as having previously served time in prison. Miranda was brought in after the Police interviewed an 18 year old kidnapping and rape victim who provided a description similar to Miranda's. Additionally, an eyewitness had identified a truck that had belonged to Miranda in connection to the case. Phoenix police, confident in their witness, took Miranda into custody where the victim then identified him as the kidnapper. Once at the police station, Miranda was placed in a lineup of suspects where he was identified again by the victim. Feeling confident that they had their man, the police began to interview Miranda about the case as well as an unrelated armed robbery. Prior to the interview, Miranda was not informed of his right to remain silent or to have a lawyer. During his two hour interrogation by the police, Miranda confessed to the crime and wrote out a full confession. In his written confession, Miranda said he understood his rights and that the statements could be used against him. In reality, Miranda had not been informed of his rights, which raises issues of coercion since the interrogation occurred without his awareness of constitutional protections and without an attorney. Miranda was eventually assigned a court appointed defense lawyer, Alvin Moore. When Miranda's confession was offered as evidence in the case, Moore objected to its inclusion as it was technically considered involuntary. The judge ruled against Moore's objection and sentenced miranda to a 2030 year prison sentence. Despite the ruling, Moore did not give up on Miranda. Believing his constitutional rights had been violated, he decided to appeal the case to the Arizona Supreme Court earlier arguing that the confession was not fully voluntary. The Arizona Supreme Court listened to Moore's evidence in State v. Miranda, but ultimately ruled that the confession was usable in court, highlighting the fact that Miranda had never asked for an attorney. In appealing the Arizona State Supreme Court decision, the case was brought before the United States Supreme Court. Attorney John Paul Frank represented Miranda in the case, emphasizing that he was never informed of his right to an attorney, a violation of the Sixth Amendment. He was also never told of his right to remain silent, which violated the Fifth Amendment. After hearing the case, the Supreme Court issued a 54 decision in which the court sided with the defense, overturned the conviction, and remanded the case back to Arizona for retrial. In their justification for overturning the conviction, the majority believed that the police interview was coercive because Miranda wasn't informed of his rights. Because of this, Miranda's confession was inadmissible because he wasn't aware of his rights nor did he waive them. As part of the ruling, the Supreme Court also reaffirmed that an individual had the right to remain silent at any time during an interrogation. Once the Fifth Amendment is evoked, an interrogation must end. Additionally, once a suspect asks for a lawyer, interrogations must cease until they get one as per the Sixth Amendment. The judges who ruled in favor of Miranda argued that custodial interrogation needs proper safeguards to protect the accused from the pressure and compulsion that they're under from law enforcement to confess. The Supreme Court also supported its ruling by citing the fact that the FBI already required informing suspects of their rights to remain silent and to have a lawyer. The dissenting Justices primarily focused on concerns about states ability to implement these requirements and the risk that failure to read these rights could lead criminals to avoid prosecution. Back in Arizona, Miranda was retried for his crime, this time with the confession withheld from evidence. During the retrial, the prosecution brought in Miranda's former friend. The police had tracked her down and claimed to the police that Miranda had confessed the crimes to her when she visited him in jail. Between the testimony and evidence presented, Miranda was convicted once again. Following his conviction, Miranda's lawyer confessed that he had messed up the case as he didn't focus on whether Miranda was guilty and instead was focusing on the constitutional issues. After being paroled in 1972, Miranda returned to his neighborhood where he became a bit of a local celebrity. He earned a modest income by autographing police cards that featured Miranda warnings. Ernesto Miranda died in 1976 after he was stabbed in a bar during an argument. No one was ever convicted of his murder. The Miranda decision left law enforcement with a fundamental problem, and a solution was needed quickly. The idea for issuing Miranda warnings originated with Professor Yale Kamasar. The idea was simple. Law enforcement must issue a statement to their suspects in custody before interrogation. Technically, there is no specific text that police have to use. Specific wordings vary by state and police jurisdiction. Those arrested simply must be informed of their rights. However, the most common wording is something like have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions. You have the right to have a lawyer with you during questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. If you decide to answer questions now without a lawyer present, you have the right to stop answering at any time. Miranda warnings are valid so long as they are clear the rights are properly disclosed and the defendant can waive them only voluntarily. To waive means to consciously and voluntarily give up a right. The words do not need to be in a specific order, but all the rights have to be mentioned to trigger the reading of these rights. Suspects must be in custody or under interrogation. In this context, in custody means the suspect is not free to leave and is restrained. To help cover their bases, many law enforcement officers carry cards with Miranda rights printed on them, so a suspect can read the warnings for themselves if necessary. If the Miranda warnings are not read, any statements made in custody cannot be used in criminal trial. Additionally, any statements made in custody before Miranda warnings are read are also considered invalid. While law enforcement is allowed to investigate statements said prior to the reading of the Miranda rights, using the direct words as evidence in a trial is strictly prohibited. There have been a few cases since then that have expanded and weakened Miranda rights. One of these cases was Burkamer vs McCarthy, which was decided by the Supreme Court in 1984. The case ruled that the Miranda rights must be read in every case regardless of the severity of the offense. Many law enforcement agencies were giving Miranda warnings only to suspects arrested for serious crimes and felonies, not to those arrested for petty offenses. In Burkamer v. McCarthy, the defendant, Richard McCarthy, was driving under the influence of alcohol and marijuana when Officer Harry Burkamer pulled him over. Burkamer asked McCarthy to leave the car and test his sobriety. After McCarthy failed a balancing test and noticed that he was barely able to stand and was slurring his words, Burkamer asked if McCarthy was under the influence. McCarthy answered yes, and Burkamer brought him to the county jail where he was tested for alcohol. McCarthy passed the test as it showed no alcohol being present in his system. Burkamer then brought McCarthy into interrogation, where he questioned him on drinking, something McCarthy again admitted to. However, he was never read his Miranda rights. Despite the case being relatively small when compared to crimes like kidnapping and murder, the Supreme Court ruled that the Miranda warnings needed to be given to every person interrogated or in custody, regardless of the crime. A case that weakened the power of Miranda rights also occurred in 1984 in New York vs. Quarles. This case allowed flexibility in issuing Miranda warnings when there is an inherent risk to public safety. In this case, a police officer arrested Benjamin Quarles under suspicion of rape. While making the arrest, the officer noticed that Quarles had an empty shoulder holster. The arrest was made in public at a supermarket. The officer asked Quarles where the gun was and he nodded in its direction, saying, over there. The case was brought to the Supreme Court as Quarles had made the statement about his weapon before he was read his Miranda rights. His lawyer believed that the statement could not be administered in evidence. Because of that, the Supreme Court ruled that statements may be used as evidence when the arresting officer is asking questions that are reasonably concerned for the public safety. Another case that limited miranda rights was 1971's Harris v. New York. This case held that the prosecution may use confessions obtained before Miranda rights were given for the purpose of discrediting the defendant in court. The confession could still not be used as evidence of guilt, but could be used to suggest that the defendant's testimony was dishonest. This created a legal loophole for an illegally obtained confession to come into play during trial. Miranda rights have become one of the most recognizable symbols of American criminal law, but their importance goes beyond a familiar phrase from police dramas. They represent an attempt to make constitutional protections real at the exact moment when a suspect is most vulnerable. The executive producer of Everything Everywhere Daily is Charles Daniel. The associate producers are Austin Otkin and Cameron Kieffer. Research and writing for this episode is provided by the Olivia Ashe I want to remind everyone that the sixth anniversary episode of Everything Everywhere Daily is coming up on July 1st, and I'm going to turn the show over to all of you. You can record a brief audio message that will be played on the show@speakpipe.com everything everywhere and tell me who you are, where you're from, and what your favorite episode is. There's a link to the site in the top of the show. Notes Today's review comes from listener MrTipton, 33 on Apple Podcasts in the United States. They write I finally did it. I started listening to the podcast on July 2, 2024 while taking a trip with my family through Texas to celebrate independence. Five hundred days and 1957 episodes later, I'm proud to say I am the newest member of the El Paso, Texas Completionist Club. Thank you, Gary, for such an amazing show. As a daily podcaster myself, I know how hard it is to do a show. However, I take my weekends and holidays off. A tip of the hat to you. I can't wait to listen to every show again. Well, thank you, Mr. Tipton. I'm glad to see the border region represented, and it's also nice to see that you have time to listen even though you're doing your own daily podcast. Remember, if you leave a review of the podcast on any of the major podcast apps, you too can have it running the show, even though it might take a while.