We the People: The Right to Remain Silent

Summary

Throughline: We the People—The Right to Remain Silent

Release Date: July 31, 2025
Host/Author: Rund Abdelfattah and Ramtin Arablouei, NPR

---

Introduction

In the episode titled "We the People: The Right to Remain Silent," hosts Rund Abdelfattah and Ramtin Arablouei delve into the complexities of the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination and its practical application in the American legal system. The episode traces the historical evolution of the right to remain silent, examining pivotal court cases and the ongoing challenges in enforcing this fundamental protection.

Historical Context: The Genesis of the Fifth Amendment

[03:09] Ramtin Arablouei introduces the episode's central mystery: "Why is it that despite having the right to silence, most people end up talking anyway? And what does that tell us about what our Fifth Amendment rights really mean?"

The Fifth Amendment was crafted to protect individuals from government overreach, ensuring that they cannot be compelled to testify against themselves. However, the framers could not have anticipated the modern landscape of pervasive law enforcement presence, where most interactions with the justice system occur outside traditional courtroom settings.

Brown v. Mississippi: The Foundation of Coerced Confessions

[06:48] Corinna Barrett Lane begins Part One by recounting a 1934 incident in Kemper County, Mississippi, where three African American sharecroppers—Ed Brown and two others—were brutally tortured into confessing to the murder of a white planter, Raymond Stewart. Despite their denials and visible injuries, the men were convicted and sentenced to death.

[09:16] Ramtin Arablouei explains that their appeals highlighted the coerced nature of their confessions, leading the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in Brown v. Mississippi (1936) that confessions obtained through violence violated the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, "[20:16] The Court reverses the men's convictions, emphasizing that such confessions are inconsistent with due process."

This landmark decision introduced the "voluntariness test," questioning whether a confession was freely given or the result of coercive police tactics.

Miranda v. Arizona: Clarifying the Right to Remain Silent

[25:54] The episode transitions to the 1960s, a period marked by increasing police brutality and civil rights activism. [25:58] Rund Abdelfattah notes that cumulative cases of coerced confessions led the Supreme Court to establish clearer guidelines.

The pivotal moment came with Miranda v. Arizona (1966), where Ernesto Miranda was arrested, interrogated without being informed of his rights, and subsequently confessed to kidnapping and rape. Miranda's appeal highlighted the lack of awareness and protection surrounding the Fifth Amendment.

[28:55] The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Earl Warren, concluded that police interrogations are inherently coercive. Thus, to ensure confessions are voluntary, the Court mandated the now-famous Miranda warnings:

1. "You have the right to remain silent."
   [30:00] Kalu Njaku succinctly states, "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in court."

2. "You have the right to an attorney."
   [30:19] Rund Abdelfattah emphasizes this pivotal protection.

These warnings aimed to safeguard individuals' rights during custodial interrogations, ensuring they are aware of their protections against self-incrimination.

Challenges and Loopholes Post-Miranda

Despite the establishment of Miranda rights, the episode highlights ongoing issues in their enforcement and effectiveness:

[31:24] Ramtin Arablouei observes, "Even before Miranda, police had figured out a loophole. If they told suspects their rights from the get-go, it would be harder later on for them to say they were coerced."

1. Ambiguity in Assertion:
   To invoke the right to remain silent, individuals must explicitly state their intent. [43:14] Corinna Barrett Lane explains, "If you don't assert it clearly and unequivocally, police can continue their interrogation." This requirement often places the burden on the suspect to understand and articulate their rights effectively.

2. Selective Application:
   [32:17] Kalu Njaku points out that Miranda warnings apply only when a suspect is in custody. Police can circumvent this by engaging suspects in non-custodial settings, such as public places, where warnings are not mandated.

3. Overreliance on Legal Interpretation:
   The need for explicit assertion of rights has led to contentious legal debates, exemplified by cases like Burgess v. Tompkins (2010), where mere silence was insufficient to invoke Miranda, requiring clear verbal or written assertion.

[47:15] Kalu Njaku encapsulates the dilemma: "We want it to put limits on the government's investigative powers, but we also know that it is a costly right to have that."

Erosion of Miranda Rights and the Counter-Revolution

The episode traces the gradual erosion of Miranda protections, particularly during the "counter-revolution in criminal justice" post-1960s. [35:31] Rund Abdelfattah notes, "President Nixon wins the 68 election, runs on a law and order campaign..."

This shift saw the Supreme Court adopting a more conservative stance, often striking down or limiting Miranda-related protections, thereby weakening the original intent of safeguarding against coerced self-incrimination.

Current Implications: Navigating the Right to Silence

In exploring contemporary applications, the hosts discuss high-profile cases and legal standards that continue to shape the understanding of the Fifth Amendment:

1. Case Studies:
   [38:41] Corinna Barrett Lane presents the case of Vanchester Tompkins, who remained silent during interrogation but failed to explicitly assert his right, leading to his conviction despite his minimal participation.

2. Public Perception vs. Legal Reality:
   There's a significant gap between the public's understanding of Miranda rights and their actual legal protections. Many believe that merely being informed grants full protection, whereas in reality, the protective measures require active and clear assertion by the suspect.

[46:37] Corinna Barrett Lane reflects, "...accessing the rights, that's something we really ought to talk about, because people just think oh, I've got them. And it's like, well, no, you have to speak with specificity."

Conclusion: The Ongoing Struggle for Effective Protection

The episode concludes by contemplating the current state of the Fifth Amendment’s right to remain silent. [47:04] Rund Abdelfattah questions, "Do we still have the right to remain silent as we understand it?"

[48:40] Kalu Njaku summarizes the tension inherent in balancing governmental authority and individual rights: "We all are socialized to support our government... But on the other hand, we also have a justified fear of government overreaching..."

Corinna Barrett Lane offers a poignant reflection on Miranda rights as a "Frankenstein version"—a distorted relic that, while symbolically significant, has been undermined by legal loopholes and evolving judicial interpretations.

---

Notable Quotes:

• Ramtin Arablouei [03:09]: "Why is it that despite having the right to silence, most people end up talking anyway?"

• Corinna Barrett Lane [30:00]: "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in court."

• Kalu Njaku [47:04]: "We want it to put limits on the government's investigative powers, but we also know that it is a costly right to have that."

• Corinna Barrett Lane [46:37]: "Accessing the rights, that's something we really ought to talk about, because people just think oh, I've got them. And it's like, well, no, you have to speak with specificity."

Final Thoughts

"We the People: The Right to Remain Silent" offers a comprehensive examination of the Fifth Amendment's journey from its inception to its current state, highlighting both its foundational importance and the challenges it faces in modern jurisprudence. Through historical narratives and critical analysis, Throughline underscores the enduring struggle to balance individual rights with effective law enforcement, urging listeners to reconsider the true meaning and application of the right to remain silent in today's society.

Transcript

[Amazon Pharmacy]

This message comes from Amazon Pharmacy. Ever been so sick that thinking of going to the pharmacy made you more sick? With Amazon Pharmacy, meds are delivered fast right to your door. You just have to make it to your door. Amazon Healthcare just got less painful.

[Rund Abdelfattah]

Hey, everyone. Rund here. Before we get to the show, we wanted to share just a little bit of good news, which is that Time magazine recently named our show as one of the 100 best podcasts of all time. It's such an honor to be included. And whether you've been listening to us since 2019, when we first launched, or since just yesterday, we wouldn't be able to make this show without you. So from all of us here at Throughline, thank you so much. All right, before I start getting choked up, let's get on with the show. Before we begin, we just wanted to let you know that this episode contains descriptions of racial violence.

[Corinna Barrett Lane]

Took his coat off. Now he's wearing a blue shirt with number 15 on it. Heading northbound through the complex.

[Ramtin Arablouei]

You have a right to remain silent.

[Corinna Barrett Lane]

Dexter Morgan, you have the right to remain silent.

[Rund Abdelfattah]

Hey, you're not really arresting me.

[Corinna Barrett Lane]

You have the right to remain silent.

[Kalu Njaku]

Walter White, you have the right to remain silent.

[Rund Abdelfattah]

You know this moment, the scene right after the dramatic standoff when the suspect is finally tracked down and cuffed. Whether it's a serious drama or a parody on the Simpsons, this line is pretty much a must have in any cop story. Maybe you even know the rest of it, too.

[Ramtin Arablouei]

You have the right to remain silent.

[Kalu Njaku]

Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.

[Ramtin Arablouei]

You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford one, an attorney.

[Kalu Njaku]

Will be provided for you.

[Rund Abdelfattah]

All right?

[Corinna Barrett Lane]

I mean, anybody who watches tv, fourth graders can read Miranda rights. And show me another decision where, you know, even children know the rights.

[Ramtin Arablouei]

The Miranda rights, the thing the police have to say once you're under arrest and in their custody and they want to start interrogating you in pop culture.

[Corinna Barrett Lane]

I think Miranda is this nod to your constitutional rights, and the police are going to help you and are going to make sure that you understand your rights. And it feels very collaborative.

[Ramtin Arablouei]

The Miranda rights came out of the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution. That's the one that protects you against such a. In other words, you can't be forced to tell on yourself.

[Corinna Barrett Lane]

And yet the vast majority of suspects waive their rights and talk to the police. And so there's a mystery there, right? Like, how does that work? What happened?

[Ramtin Arablouei]

That mystery is what we're going to try to solve on this episode. Why is it that despite having the right to silence, most people end up talking anyway? And what does that tell us about what our Fifth Amendment rights really mean? Like many other amendments, the way we understand the Fifth has changed a lot. The framers saw how government power could be abused, and they wanted individual people to have protections against that power in court.

[Rund Abdelfattah]

But they couldn't have predicted a world where most of us are less likely to face a judge inside a courtroom than a police officer outside on the streets. They couldn't have imagined someone being pulled over on the I5 highway, told to step out of their vehicle, questioned and placed under arrest by officers with guns.

[Ramtin Arablouei]

I'm Ramtin Arablouei.

[Rund Abdelfattah]

And I'm Rend Abdelfattah. On today's episode of Throughline. From npr, we continue our we the People series on the past, present and future of amendments to the U.S. constitution.

[Ramtin Arablouei]

Coming up, the Fifth Amendment, the right to remain sick, silent, and how hard it can be to use it.

[Kalu Njaku]

My name is Kalu Njaku and you are listening to by npr. I love this show so much because it really helps us understand that where we are right now as a society because of these events that you guys talk about in our past. I'm so thankful for you guys. You all keep me so hungry for knowledge and I wish you guys the best.

[Amazon Pharmacy]

This message comes from Amazon. Have you ever gotten sick on a very expensive, very non refundable family trip? Amazon One Medical has 247 virtual care so you can get help no matter where you are. And with Amazon Pharmacy your meds can get delivered right to your hotel for fast. It's kind of like the room service of medical care. Thanks to Amazon, health care just got less painful.

[Brandon Forder]

This Message comes from Capital One, presenting sponsor of the 2025 Tiny Desk Contest. More than 7,000 unsigned artists entered NPR Music's Tiny Desk Contest this year. The judges will pick one winner to perform behind the Tiny Desk at NPR's headquarters. Then the Tiny Desk Contest is heading on the road. Join the fun this summer as the winner travels to 10 cities for one of a kind concerts in Los Angeles, Chicago, Nashville and more. And at each stop, a unique surprise headliner who has played the tiny desk will join the bill with the 2025 winner. Visit npr.org tiny deskcontest to buy tickets. Then get ready to get out there with the Venture X card from presenting sponsor Capital One. With Venture X, you earn unlimited double miles on everything you buy, turning all of your purchases into extraordinary travel. Capital One. What's in your wallet. Terms apply. See capitalone.com for details. This message comes from Grammarly. From emails to reports and project proposals, it's hard to meet the demands of today's competing priorities without some help. Grammarly is the essential AI communication assistant that boosts your productivity at work so you can get more of what you need done faster. Just a few clicks can tailor your tone and writing so you come across exactly as you intend to get time back to focus on your high impact work. Download Grammarly for [e-mail] podcast. That's Grammarly.com podcast.

[Corinna Barrett Lane]

Part one the Cruel Trilemma.

[Rund Abdelfattah]

It was a spring day in 1934, Kemper County, Mississippi. The police were called to the home of a man named Raymond Stewart, a white planter who hired black sharecroppers to work his land. When they got to the scene, the police found Stewart in a critical state. He died just as a physician was arriving, beaten to death. This is Donald Tripps. He's a law professor at the University of San Diego.

[Kalu Njaku]

The deputies immediately focus on three African Americans.

[Rund Abdelfattah]

The primary suspect, Ed Brown, was a 30 year old black sharecropper who worked on Stewart's farm. Police also believe two other black men were involved. Over the next couple of days, the deputy sheriff arrested these men while in police custody. The men were whipped. One of them was even hung from a tree by his neck. The violence continued until they confessed.

[Kalu Njaku]

The trial took place shortly after the.

[Ramtin Arablouei]

Three defendants testified that they were not guilty. They described the torture that had led them to falsely confess.

[Kalu Njaku]

And everybody in the courtroom could still see the rope mark around his neck.

[Ramtin Arablouei]

And the marks of a whip on the defendant's skin.

[Corinna Barrett Lane]

And the deputy sheriff takes the stand.

[Rund Abdelfattah]

This is Corinna Barrett Lane. She's a professor of law at the University of Richmond School of Law.

[Corinna Barrett Lane]

And he's asked, did you, you know, did you put these marks on him? Did you whip this person? Did you hang this person? And the deputy sheriff says, yes, quote.

[Kalu Njaku]

Yes, they were whipped, but not too much for a Negro.

[Corinna Barrett Lane]

But not too much for a Negro.

[Kalu Njaku]

There was no effort to deny this right.

[Rund Abdelfattah]

This is in the middle of Jim Crow in Mississippi. These confessions were the only evidence against the three men. Still, all three of them were convicted and sentenced to death. But the road didn't end there for them. They decided to appeal on the grounds that their confessions should have been inadmissible.

[Ramtin Arablouei]

And the case went up to the Mississippi Supreme Court.

[Corinna Barrett Lane]

So the Mississippi Supreme Court affirms the.

[Ramtin Arablouei]

Convictions, even though one of the judges on the state Supreme Court dissented, saying the transcript reads more like pages torn from some medieval account. The so called trial was never a legitimate proceeding from beginning to end. It was never anything but a fictitious continuation of the mob which originally instituted and engaged in the admitted tortures, like.

[Kalu Njaku]

Something out of a medieval torture manual, not from an American courtroom.

[Ramtin Arablouei]

The defendants appealed again. Their case traveled to the US Supreme Court, who was faced with the question, should their convictions be upheld even when the only evidence against them was a set of confessions that the police elicited using violence? If you know your Fifth Amendment rights, the answer might seem obvious.

[Rund Abdelfattah]

But if you don't know your rights, the Fifth, just like many of the other amendments, is a litany of commas and semicolons. So let's break it down.

[Ramtin Arablouei]

First, it says, no person shall be.

[Kalu Njaku]

Held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on presentment or indictment.

[Ramtin Arablouei]

The government can't bring serious federal charges against you without a grand jury.

[Kalu Njaku]

Nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.

[Ramtin Arablouei]

You, you can't get charged for the same crime twice.

[Rund Abdelfattah]

And finally, the most important part for our purposes in this episode, nor shall.

[Corinna Barrett Lane]

Be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.

[Ramtin Arablouei]

The self incrimination, privilege. In other words, you can't be forced to testify against yourself.

[Corinna Barrett Lane]

It seems so obvious upon reading the text that like, of course this is supposed to prohibit the police from getting coerced confessions. Of course it is. It pretty much says that.

[Ramtin Arablouei]

But at the time the defendants in Brown v. Mississippi appealed their case to the Supreme Court, the Fifth Amendment wasn't actually an option for protecting people from state police, because when the Bill of Rights was written, that wasn't what the framers were worried about.

[Rund Abdelfattah]

Let's go back to that room. When the framers are putting together the Constitution, what is that conversation like when it comes to the Fifth Amendment specifically?

[Ramtin Arablouei]

They meet in 89, 1789, that is.

[Kalu Njaku]

And the first thing that they do in Congress is propose a bill of rights, because the quid pro quo for getting ratification by Virginia in particular and Massachusetts in particular. In those states, there was a lot of sentiment that we don't need this new government is too dangerous. People thought of themselves as Virginians or citizens of Massachusetts or New Yorkers. They didn't think of themselves as citizens of the United States so much. And they were worried that this new government posed a lot of threats to them.

[Rund Abdelfattah]

One of the things they were worried about protecting was people's rights. When they Were accused of a crime, and they were looking back towards Europe as an example of what not to do.

[Kalu Njaku]

There was a contemporary practice on the continent of Europe where the criminal process relied literally on juridical torture.

[Rund Abdelfattah]

Juridical torture. It basically meant that the judge had all the power in the world to try and get a confession out of someone by any means necessary.

[Kalu Njaku]

The judge who investigated the case would collect the evidence and question witnesses and so forth. And if there were two witnesses who accused the suspect, then the suspect could be told to confess. And if he didn't confess, then he'd be put on the rack and tortured until he did confess.

[Rund Abdelfattah]

By the time the American founders sat down to write their new nation's constitution, Torture had been mostly abolished in Europe, but not completely. And even practices long since gone were on their minds. Until the mid-1600s, courts in England had their own special way of trying to get a confession out of someone. It was called the star chamber.

[Ramtin Arablouei]

The star chamber, which actually sounds like something right out of a sci fi movie, but it was actually a court where the person accused of a crime would have to appear before the judge without knowing what crime they were being charged with and answer any of the judge's questions. They had to swear before God that they would tell the truth.

[Kalu Njaku]

You know, this is still a religious country, and nonetheless, that was a much more religious period. And the idea that you could be made to swear an oath to tell the truth and confess all your crimes, People really thought their souls were on the line in a very vivid sense.

[Ramtin Arablouei]

And if they didn't tell the truth, there were real consequences. They could be imprisoned or tortured. People accused of a crime found themselves trapped. It was a tactic that came to.

[Corinna Barrett Lane]

Be known as the cruel trilemma.

[Ramtin Arablouei]

This was much worse than a plain old dilemma. It was a trilemma in this court system, People were presumed guilty, which meant they pretty much had three bad options.

[Corinna Barrett Lane]

One, confess because they've been placed under oath and they're guilty. Not a great option. Two, take the stand and lie, say you're innocent, which would open them up to a perjury charge. Or three, take the stand and refuse to do either of those refuse to testify, which would open them up to contempt of court. So the point is you can't win.

[Rund Abdelfattah]

So this is all in the minds of the framers of the constitution, Right? They're like, aware of this history of these practices, right?

[Kalu Njaku]

Yeah. They were afraid that the new government would revert to those practices. There was nothing in the constitution that would prevent copying those European methods. Of interrogation.

[Rund Abdelfattah]

And so this is what the fifth amendment was all about and what the framers were trying to avoid. The fifth would make sure that the new US Federal government couldn't use these European court practices on suspects accused of a crime.

[Corinna Barrett Lane]

The Bill of Rights were really about the federal government and a limit on what the federal government could do. And so when you think about the fourth, Fifth, sixth Amendments, these amendments that are applying in the criminal context, they're applying only to federal prosecutions. And the problem with that is that 97% of all criminal prosecutions then as now occur in the state courts. And so, you know, from the very start, none of the Bill of Rights meant a whole lot. 97% of the time, they weren't accessible at all.

[Rund Abdelfattah]

Most people charged with the crime would go to trial in a state court, not a federal court. The fifth amendment couldn't do anything for them. It also couldn't protect people outside of the courtroom. That might seem like a major oversight by the framers, but remember, when they wrote this amendment, they were living in a completely different world.

[Kalu Njaku]

One of the things that's ironic about it or difficult to get your head around is that we didn't have 247 uniformed police in this country until 50 or 60 years after the Fifth Amendment was written and ratified. And it was a development that no one really anticipated. The grand jurors were your neighbors, the constable, the sheriff, the justice of the peace, they were all your neighbors. And that persisted for a long time.

[Ramtin Arablouei]

It wasn't until the mid 19th century that more modern features of the criminal justice system we know today began to form. Cities were growing bigger and crimes like theft were becoming more of a problem. In response, cities began to hire full time police forces and created criminal penitentiaries. In many cases, police specifically targeted black citizens.

[Corinna Barrett Lane]

In that civil war and in its aftermath, it becomes quite clear that states also could deprive defendants of their rights, could treat people unfairly. Again, the Bill of Rights protections only applied against the federal government. So they only protected people in federal courts. And to make them real, they have to apply to the states. Well, how are you going to do that?

[Ramtin Arablouei]

The answer was within a brand new.

[Corinna Barrett Lane]

Amendment, the 14th amendment.

[Ramtin Arablouei]

All right, we got to pause for a second because I'm sure you're thinking at this point, isn't this episode about the Fifth Amendment? And the answer is yes. But because the 14th Amendment is a big turning point for individual rights, it's going to play an important part in getting us to the fifth.

[Rund Abdelfattah]

So we've talked a lot about the 14th Amendment on the show. We even have a whole episode dedicated to it. It was ratified after the Civil War specifically to guarantee certain rights to black Americans. And it's a big amendment chock full of protections. But the part of it that's relevant for this story is a clause called the Due process clause.

[Corinna Barrett Lane]

Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

[Rund Abdelfattah]

The 14th amendment said that it wasn't just the federal government that had to respect people's individual rights. It was state governments, too. So now many of the protections in the Bill of rights, including the Fifth Amendment, could be expanded. It was like the 14th was like the key to unlock all the other amendments.

[Corinna Barrett Lane]

You've got it exactly right. It is. It was the key they used to unlock it.

[Ramtin Arablouei]

The 14th amendment was like a legal tool that could be used to extend the protections of the Constitution.

[Corinna Barrett Lane]

And so it's a very big deal when the 14th Amendment is adopted. And that's what gives the Supreme Court the ability to create new law.

[Ramtin Arablouei]

And one of the cases where the court applied the 14th amendment was Brown.

[Corinna Barrett Lane]

Versus Mississippi in 1936.

[Ramtin Arablouei]

Remember, the three black defendants had been convicted of killing a white farmer based on confessions they gave. After days of whippings and even a mock lynching, they were sentenced to death, but appealed their convictions on the grounds that their confessions should have been thrown out.

[Amazon Pharmacy]

The question in this case is whether convictions which rest solely upon confessions shown to have been extorted by officers of the state by brutality and violence, are consistent with the due process of the law required by the 14th amendment.

[Corinna Barrett Lane]

That's the Supreme Court's very first coerced confession interrogation case, where the court comes out and says, okay, we're going to find some protections here. It's the 14th Amendment due process clause that the court turns to to find those protections.

[Amazon Pharmacy]

Coercing the supposed state's criminals into confessions and using such confessions so coerced from them against them in trial has been the curse of all countries.

[Ramtin Arablouei]

The Supreme Court reverses the men's convictions.

[Corinna Barrett Lane]

And says the 14th Amendment due process clause precludes the state from getting convictions using confessions that were obtained by brutality or violence.

[Ramtin Arablouei]

In the decision, they even mentioned those European courts that the framers were so wary of.

[Amazon Pharmacy]

It was the crowning infamy of the Star Chamber and the Inquisition and similar institutions. The Constitution recognized the evils that lay behind these practices and prohibited them in this country.

[Corinna Barrett Lane]

And in so doing, the court establishes what has come to be known as the voluntariness test.

[Rund Abdelfattah]

The voluntariness test, as in was that confession voluntary?

[Corinna Barrett Lane]

It is. The due process clause prohibits the use of confessions that were obtained against a person's will that were involuntary due to police action in some way. The Supreme Court recognizes it, states it for the very first time in Brown versus Mississippi.

[Rund Abdelfattah]

So great. End of story. Right.

[Corinna Barrett Lane]

The problem with the voluntariness test, which became more and more clear over time, is what does it mean for a confession to be involuntary? Sure. The Supreme Court says, well, the police have to do something that overtakes your will. I mean, what even does that mean? And what are we going to consider?

[Ramtin Arablouei]

That's coming up.

[Kalu Njaku]

Hi, this is Mahmoud Dijama. I'm calling from the great city of Seattle, and you listen to LIFE from npr.

[Amazon Pharmacy]

This message comes from Strawberry Me. You've worked hard to get where you are, but what's next? Strawberry Me Career coaching helps professionals like you take the next big step with confidence by matching you with a certified career coach who understands your goals and challenges. This isn't just advice. It's a personalized, results driven approach to uncover hidden strengths, overcome obstacles and accelerate your career growth. Visit Strawberry Me NPR to claim your $50 credit. This message comes from Wise, the app for doing things and other currencies. With Wise, you can send, spend or receive money across borders, all at a fair exchange rate, no markups or hidden fees. Join millions of customers and visit wise.com Ts and Cs apply.

[Brandon Forder]

This message comes from Progressive Insurance. Fiscally responsible financial geniuses, monetary magicians. These are things people say about drivers who switch their car insurance to Progressive and save hundreds. Visit progressive.com to see if you could save Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states or situations.

[Corinna Barrett Lane]

Part two, the right to remain silent.

[Ramtin Arablouei]

You know as well as I do that in all these cases where two or more persons pull off a job like this, someone always ends up talking. And in this case, it might as well be you. So let's get going before somebody leaves you holding the bag. Don't let the other fellow get his lickson first and put all the blame on you. You say your piece first and then we can believe you. But if you wait until the other fellow has his say, no one's going to believe your story, even when you do decide to tell the truth. Lie Detection and criminal interrogation manual, 1953. So in Brown vs Mississippi, the court rules that the confessions that were coerced by police can't be used. That's 1936 and over the next three decades, police coercion cases start flooding the court. There's one where dozens of black men were questioned over the course of eight days. Another where police interrogated someone for 36.

[Corinna Barrett Lane]

Hours so long that the police get tired, so then they take shifts in order to do it. And the Supreme Court says, oh, come on, if even you are tired and you have to take shifts, well, that's clearly involuntary.

[Ramtin Arablouei]

There was even a case where the suspect was driven from county to county and told that he might be in danger of being lynched if he didn't confess. These are just a few examples. There were many, many more. And that voluntariness test that the Court had established in the Brown case that confessions have to be voluntary wasn't really working. Police were still getting people to talk.

[Rund Abdelfattah]

So by the 1960s, the Supreme Court finally said, look, we can't keep making rulings about voluntariness on a case by case basis. We need to come up with some kind of guidance that prevents police coercion from happening in the first place. Which brings us to 1966, Miranda versus Arizona. Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and.

[Kalu Njaku]

Rape, and the police arrested him, and they questioned him about the crime, and he made oral admissions about it.

[Rund Abdelfattah]

He confessed to both.

[Kalu Njaku]

And then they had a formal statement typed up, and he signed that Ernesto.

[Rund Abdelfattah]

Miranda was convicted, which he later appealed on the grounds that police had not informed him of his right to remain silent. His case made its way up to the Supreme Court along with three other ones that raised similar issues regarding police coerced confessions. And when the Supreme Court got their hands on these cases, they decided to this is our chance. This is how we can create guidelines that finally tell the police how they need to behave and how suspects could be informed about their rights during interrogation.

[Kalu Njaku]

They took four different cases because they were trying to set a rule. And Supreme Court Justices wanted a menu of different fact situations so they could say, here's what happens in this case, here's what happens in this case, and so forth.

[Rund Abdelfattah]

This is something that the Supreme Court does from time to time. Brown v. Board, Roe v. Wade, where they take a number of similar cases that share similar legal issues and give one cohesive ruling that can be applied to all of them. Kind of like when you want to prove a point. The more examples you can provide, the stronger your case for it.

[Ramtin Arablouei]

And so with these four cases, under the heading of Miranda v. Arizona, the Justices began writing up some guidance to address the issue of police coercion.

[Corinna Barrett Lane]

And what the Court says is Listen, we've said for a long time, we've said since Brown vs Mississippi that a confession must be voluntary.

[Ramtin Arablouei]

But the Court also says that most of these confessions that are obtained by police are not voluntary. And that's because the environment in which interrogations take place are inherently coercive. Because think about it. Being physically restrained and kept in a dark room is probably going to make you feel scared. This is a reading from the majority opinion written by Chief Justice Earl Warren. Unless adequate protective devices are employed to dispel the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings, no statement obtained from the defendant can truly be the product of his free choice.

[Corinna Barrett Lane]

Being alone in an interrogation room is designed on purpose to overcome your will. And the Court says any confession that comes out of custodial interrogation, meaning you're.

[Ramtin Arablouei]

In custody of police being interrogated and you can't leave.

[Corinna Barrett Lane]

The Court says the only way to neutralize the inherently coercive nature of custodial interrogation is to first warn a suspect and to say, you have the right to silence anything that you say can and will be used against you.

[Ramtin Arablouei]

In other words, your Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination now applies when you're being interrogated by the police. Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed.

[Corinna Barrett Lane]

The Court is very clear in the case and says after this long discussion about police interrogation techniques, about the misuse of those techniques, what the Court does is this magical move in Miranda, that.

[Rund Abdelfattah]

Magical move being spelling out a person's rights.

[Kalu Njaku]

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in court.

[Corinna Barrett Lane]

You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you with those rights in mind? Do you wish to speak to me?

[Rund Abdelfattah]

And this, as we already know, becomes the Miranda rights. But more importantly, this is the first time the Supreme Court spells out what the Fifth Amendment means when someone is arrested by police and being interrogated.

[Ramtin Arablouei]

Once warnings have been given, the subsequent procedure is clear. If the individual indicates in any manner at any time prior to or during questioning that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease. At this point, he has shot that he intends to exercise his Fifth Amendment privilege.

[Rund Abdelfattah]

Thirty years after Brown v. Mississippi, the Court finally comes to an answer, and there was a lot of criticism from law enforcement officials saying how this would complicate and make investigations harder and would have an impact on solving crimes. But police now had no choice. They had to give a warning before interrogating a suspect, which might seem pretty clear, but wasn't really.

[Ramtin Arablouei]

Even before Miranda, police had figured out a loophole. If they told suspects their rights from the get go, it would be harder later on for them to say they were coerced.

[Corinna Barrett Lane]

Think about it this way. It's really hard to say that the police broke your will and that you gave an involuntary confession when the police are able to say, actually, we told them that they could remain silent, and we told them that anything they said would be held against them. So they were insulating themselves from voluntariness claims by giving warnings.

[Ramtin Arablouei]

The police were basically saying, we gave you your rights, and so anything you say after this is on you, not on us. And on top of that, there were other loopholes.

[Kalu Njaku]

The Miranda warning only applies when the suspect's in custody, which, roughly speaking, means under arrest.

[Corinna Barrett Lane]

It's like, well, if I don't arrest them first, if I just question them, are they entitled to Miranda? No. What about if I just arrest them but do not interrogate them? Entitled to Miranda? No.

[Kalu Njaku]

And so they can question you at the coffee shop, or they can question you when you're leaning against the police cruiser. You're not really in custody yet. You can be in handcuffs and still not be under arrest. If you're out on the street and you know, there are a lot of cases about, are you under arrest yet or not? So there's a lot of questioning by police that doesn't require the warning.

[Ramtin Arablouei]

And the kicker, even after Miranda rights requirements went into effect, police were still getting confessions, a lot of confessions.

[Corinna Barrett Lane]

So I was looking up just the local media and what they were saying at the time. And one story says, quote, for the police at least, perhaps the most interesting news is that warnings by no means stop confessions.

[Rund Abdelfattah]

In Philadelphia last October, police began giving verbal warnings as soon as they suspected.

[Corinna Barrett Lane]

Anyone of being involved.

[Rund Abdelfattah]

By last month, 76% of all felony suspects had nonetheless made voluntary statements. Okay, so the Supreme Court knew they needed Miranda rights to give guidance when it came to police interrogations. But at the same time, they also knew that it wouldn't hinder police too much in getting confessions. So what gives? Why at this moment do they decide to make this ruling? Why not just wait another 30 years to come up with some guidance?

[Ramtin Arablouei]

The Commission on Civil Rights in 1961 found much evidence to indicate that some policemen still resort to physical force to obtain confessions. The Use of physical brutality and violence is not unfortunately, relegated to the past or to any part of the country.

[Corinna Barrett Lane]

Why did the Supreme Court decide Miranda when it did? Well, you know, one thing we might want to think about is that in 1963 we had, you know, Birmingham, and in 1965 we have Selma. And people at the time that were seeing this were horrified. And the natural question was, well, if this is what the police are doing in front of everyone with live TV rolling, what are they doing behind closed doors? And by 1966, the year Miranda is decided, there's a police spokesman who's quoted in the New York Times, and he says, and I quote, never before in the 150 year history of law enforcement has police seen stock been at a lower point. Never before have the police been under such constant and largely undeserved criticism. Never before have public expressions of confidence in the police been so meager. This is the time when we're seeing civilian review boards started to hear complaints of police brutality. And so it's all figuring in. When you think about what's happening in that moment in time, of course the Supreme Court's going to put restraints.

[Rund Abdelfattah]

I think that also gets at sort of a reality, which is that the same way that the context of this moment when Miranda is decided is one in which there's more scrutiny on police, you then have sort of the emergence of a kind of law and order platform that, you know, subsequent presidents take on. So I'm wondering how over the next few decades, that sort of more rigid approach is affecting how people are thinking about the Fifth Amendment and this and the Miranda rights, the right to remain silent.

[Corinna Barrett Lane]

That's a great question because certainly the country took a hard pivot, and it basically took it right after Miranda in 1966, when Miranda is decided, crime is not showing up anywhere on Gallups annual poll of what's the most important problem in the country. By 1968, it's the number one problem on the Gallup polls. So you see this really hard pivot. President Nixon wins the 68 election, runs on a law and order campaign. He is able to appoint four justices in four years. Imagine that. And so, so then we have what we call the counter revolution in criminal justice, where the court becomes increasingly conservative over time and starts cutting back on Miranda rights and crippling Miranda rights at basically every turn.

[Rund Abdelfattah]

Coming up, Miranda takes a hit.

[Kalu Njaku]

Foreign hi, my name is Brandon Forder. I live in Groveland, Florida. You're listening to Throughline from npr.

[Amazon Pharmacy]

This message comes from Viking, committed to exploring the world in comfort. Journey through the heart of Europe on an elegant Viking longship with thoughtful service, destination focused dining and cultural enrichment on board and on shore. And every Viking voyage is all inclusive with no children and no casinos. Discover [e-mail] this message comes from FX's Alien Earth. From creator Noah Hawley and executive producer Ridley Scott comes the first television series inspired by the legendary Alien film franchise. A spaceship crash lands on Earth, bringing five unique and deadly species more terrifying than anyone could have ever imagined. And a technological advancement marks a new dawn in the race for immortality. FX's Alien Earth premieres August 12th on FX and Hulu.

[Brandon Forder]

This message comes from Progressive Insurance and the name your price tool. It helps you find car insurance options in your budget. Try it [e-mail], progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Price and coverage match limited by state law. Not available in all states.

[Corinna Barrett Lane]

Part 3 the right to remain silent if you know how to use it.

[Ramtin Arablouei]

January 10, 2000 Southfield, Michigan 9:00pm Two men sit in their car at a strip mall parking lot. A van pulls up to the car, rolls down the window and sprays the car with bullets. The van speeds away. One person is killed, the other severely wounded.

[Rund Abdelfattah]

Police investigation quickly pointed to two suspects, one of them named Vanchester Tompkins. But the police couldn't find Tompkins following the shooting. He managed to evade police for over a year until he was finally caught outside of Michigan.

[Kalu Njaku]

So Tompkins was charged with a drive by shooting. There was a murderer and another fellow was badly hurt and Tompkins was arrested in Ohio. And the Michigan detective went down to Ohio to question Tompkins there and gives the Miranda warning.

[Ramtin Arablouei]

You have the right to remain silent.

[Rund Abdelfattah]

Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.

[Corinna Barrett Lane]

The police read Tompkins his Miranda rights and he doesn't say anything. You know, so imagine what that looks like. They say, you have the right to silence. You know, anything you say may be held against you, blah blah blah. And so he just is silent. He just sits silent.

[Kalu Njaku]

But never says, I'm waiving my Miranda rights. Never signs the card.

[Corinna Barrett Lane]

Usually there's this form, or at least there was until this case. So there was this form where they read you your rights and then they give you the form saying, I understand my rights.

[Kalu Njaku]

And he doesn't say anything.

[Corinna Barrett Lane]

They are interrogating him and even the police say, well, it was nearly a monologue, right? So for three hours he just sits there silent as they're accusing him and doing all these things.

[Kalu Njaku]

He makes a few kind of one word, answers or shakes his head. But he does not engage in any kind of conversation with the detective until after hours.

[Corinna Barrett Lane]

The police turn to what they called a spiritual approach and an appeal to his conscience and religious beliefs. So they ask him, do you believe in God? And he says, yes. And then they say, do you pray to God? And he says, yes. And then they say, did you ask God to forgive you for shooting the victim? And he says, yes. Oops, there it is.

[Rund Abdelfattah]

Like the other big cases we've talked about, this one followed a familiar path. The state court found Tompkins guilty, But Tompkins would end up appealing his case, eventually going up to the supreme court. And this is where our understanding of the fifth amendment changes again.

[Kalu Njaku]

We'll hear argument first this morning in case 0814 70, Burgius vs. Tompkins.

[Corinna Barrett Lane]

He says, look, I asserted my right to silence. So when I assert the right to silence, the police have to quit questioning me. They have to stop questioning me. They told me I had to write to silence, and I was silent.

[Ramtin Arablouei]

So then the question becomes, is it reasonable for a state court to say after 2 hours and 15 minutes of asking questions, and he says nothing, Is it reasonable to hold that he has not conclude that he has not waived his rights? That was former supreme court justice Stephen Breyer speaking.

[Corinna Barrett Lane]

When we get to Burgess, you know this notion of you have to assert your rights, so if the police tell you you have the right to remain silent, can you just be silent? Is that how you assert your rights? Or can you say, I want my right to silence or I plead the fifth? Is that enough? And that's what the question becomes.

[Ramtin Arablouei]

Nothing the police had done had under. Why should the police have to play this game of, you know, an hour and a half, two hours, two hours.

[Kalu Njaku]

And 15 minutes, five hours, seven hours.

[Ramtin Arablouei]

This is former justice Antonin scalia speaking. Why don't we have just a clear rule? You read your rights.

[Corinna Barrett Lane]

If you don't.

[Amazon Pharmacy]

If you don't want to be questioned.

[Kalu Njaku]

All you have to say is, I.

[Amazon Pharmacy]

Don'T want to be questioned.

[Ramtin Arablouei]

The way he phrases this is key. If you don't want to be questioned, you have to say so.

[Corinna Barrett Lane]

That's exactly what the supreme court says about that claim. The court says you have to assert your right in order to stop questioning. And if you don't, if you don't do it clearly and unequivocally, the court says the police can just roll on.

[Kalu Njaku]

To invoke the Miranda right to remain silent. An accused must do so unambiguously that.

[Ramtin Arablouei]

Was Justice Anthony Kennedy giving the opinion announcement? Like the Miranda v. Arizona case, it was another 5, 4 split decision.

[Kalu Njaku]

Tompkins did not say that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk with the police. Had he made either of these simple statements, he would have invoked his right.

[Ramtin Arablouei]

To cut off questioning.

[Rund Abdelfattah]

But he didn't. So he was out of luck. Tompkins loses his case. And after this, the rule now was you can't exercise your fifth amendment right to remain silent by just being silent. You have to say that you want to remain silent.

[Corinna Barrett Lane]

So Listen, Burgess is 2010, and it spawns this really quite remarkable little line of cases in 2017. There's this case out of Louisiana where the defendant gets read his Miranda rights and says, I want a lawyer dog. And the Supreme Court of Louisiana says, we don't have lawyer dogs. And so therefore, you did not clearly and unequivocally assert your rights. And so, you know, it's just insanity.

[Rund Abdelfattah]

It sounds like you have to speak up, and you also have to speak up in a very specific way.

[Corinna Barrett Lane]

Absolutely. And, you know, the irony of this, of course, is that the entire point of Miranda warnings was we want to tell suspects what their rights are. So. So that they know. So we do that. But there are all these, like, little special hidden rules that you have to follow in order to access the rights. And that's not part of the warning. So, you know, the thing you already know from watching tv, that much they tell you. But the stuff that you need to know to access the rights, we're not going to tell you that.

[Ramtin Arablouei]

And the people that do know how to speak up and exercise their Miranda rights are generally people with experience.

[Kalu Njaku]

The more time you've been arrested, the more convictions you have, the more you know that these people are from the government, but they're not here to help you. The white collar defendants who've been educated and have caught with lawyers in the past, they know that they should invoke the right to counsel. And people who are professional criminals and have been through the system a few times, they know that they should invoke the right to counsel.

[Rund Abdelfattah]

What are the implications then of that decision for the fifth Amendment and this right to remain silent?

[Corinna Barrett Lane]

I think it's really great that we're talking about this decision because so many people think you have these rights, and it's like, well, you have the right to be warned of these rights, and you already knew those warnings anyway. But accessing the rights, that's something we really ought to talk about, because people just think oh, I've got them. And it's like, well, no, you have to speak with specificity.

[Rund Abdelfattah]

I mean, perhaps this is like a slightly dramatic statement, but like. Or question, but. I mean, do we still have the right to remain silent as we understand it?

[Corinna Barrett Lane]

When I think of Miranda today, I think it's this sort of Frankenstein version of what it used to be. It's been clipped, you know, so much and misshape is so misshapen now that it's really lost its ability to do much good or, for critics, much evil. And so what remains is those forewarnings which are so embedded in our culture that I'm not sure the Supreme Court could get rid of them even if it tried.

[Rund Abdelfattah]

You know, thinking about where we started, the fact that the framers in their time there wasn't this sort of national, like, police presence in the way that we obviously have it today. We weren't urbanized yet. It was an extremely rural country. You know, black people didn't. Many were still enslaved, and many others didn't have, you know, the right to vote or any other of these rights that were enshrined in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights. The country looked extremely different, is I guess, what I'm trying to say. And so I'm curious, you know, from that time to today, what this history through the lens of the Fifth Amendment tells us about our relationship as citizens to our government.

[Kalu Njaku]

Well, I mean, it's a beautiful illustration of the tension between fear and loyalty. Right? I mean, we all are socialized to support our government and to defend it with our blood if need be, and to pay our taxes and so forth. But on the other hand, we also have a justified fear of government overreaching, government discrimination, government brutality. And the general problem is one about how we have the benefits of law while minimizing the risks. And it gets to, I think, to the roots of our ambivalence about the whole right to remain silent. We want it to put limits on the government's investigative powers, but we also know that it is a costly right to have that. It protects a lot of not very nice people who've done some very bad things. If it weren't for ambivalence and complexity, there'd be no legal profession. We couldn't make an honest dollar.

[Corinna Barrett Lane]

I think the other sort of lesson learned about Miranda when it comes to people's relationship with their government is in some ways, you know, a farce. You watch TV and they give you the Miranda rights and you claim them or, you know, they respect them. And it, you know, it feels right and true and good. And in practice, the cases that we're seeing are all the different ways where that's not true. If I have to give Miranda rights, well, then maybe I want to arrest him first. Maybe I'll just interrogate him, or maybe I'll read Miranda rights as I'm arresting them when their hands are cuffed. So the thing I worry about with Miranda is that people believe that they have more rights vis a vis the government than they actually do, or that we have these, like, hidden keys and that we haven't told people how to access their rights. Which is so ironic because that was the point of Miranda in the first place, is to tell people about their rights. I remember having an interrogator in my criminal procedure class, and he was somebody I worked with as a prosecutor. I brought him in to talk about how they get confessions. And he talked about it. And one of the students raised their hand and said, well, I don't think this is fair. And his answer was, but it's legal. The Supreme Court said I could wow.

[Rund Abdelfattah]

Fair. Fair and legal are not always the same thing as what they're saying.

[Corinna Barrett Lane]

Absolutely. And I've never forgotten that. I see the story of the Fifth Amendment as being more a story about the Supreme Court's relationship with the people and how constitutional provisions that perhaps were designed for one thing can and do grow, and they also shrink.

[Rund Abdelfattah]

Next up on our we the People series on amendments that to the US Constitution, the 8th Amendment, and what cruel and unusual punishment really means. And that's it for this week's show. I'm Rund Abdelfattah.

[Ramtin Arablouei]

I'm Ramtin Arablouei and you've been listening to throughline from npr.

[Rund Abdelfattah]

This episode was produced by me and.

[Ramtin Arablouei]

Me and Lawrence Wu, Julie Kane, Anya.

[Corinna Barrett Lane]

Steinberg, Casey Minor, Christina Kim, Devon Kadayama, Irene Noguchi.

[Rund Abdelfattah]

Voiceover work in this episode was also done by Blaise Adler Ivanbrook, Cory Turner, Sarina Davina, Gracia, Neal Rauch, Christian Benford, Scott Lane and Irina Wong. Thanks also to Tracy Macklin and Daniel Medwet for their help on this episode.

[Ramtin Arablouei]

Thank you to Johnnette Oakes, Keandre Starling, Johannes Durge, Tony Cavan, Nadia Lanci, Edith Chapin and Colin Campbell.

[Rund Abdelfattah]

Fact checking for this episode was done by Kevin Voelkel. This episode was mixed by Robert Rodriguez. Music for this episode was composed by Ramtin and his band Drop Electric, which.

[Ramtin Arablouei]

Includes Anya Mizani, Navid, Marvi, Sho Fujiwara. And finally, if you have an idea or like something you heard on his show, write us at throughlineprd. And if you don't already, please follow us on Apple, Spotify and the NPR app. That way you'll never miss an episode.

[Rund Abdelfattah]

Thanks for listening.

[Amazon Pharmacy]

This message comes from Capital One. With the Capital One Saver card, earn unlimited 3% cash back on dining and entertainment. Capital One what's in your wallet? Terms apply [e-mail] this message comes from.

[Brandon Forder]

Saatva Getting quality sleep can improve athletic abilities, increase energy, and boost memory and learning. Saatva mattresses are designed to promote that kind of sleep. Save $200 on $1,000 or more at.

[Amazon Pharmacy]

Saatva.Com NPR this message comes from NPR sponsor Oracle. In business, they say you can have better, cheaper or faster, but you only get to pick two. What if you could have all three at the same time? Oracle Cloud Infrastructure is the blazing fast platform for your infrastructure, database, application development and AI needs. With oci, you can run any workload in a high availability, consistently high performance environment and spend less than you would with other clouds. To try OCI for free with zero commitment, go to oracle.com npr.