UNIT 4: Case Study

1. UNIT 4: Case Study

2. CONSTITUTIONAL TEXTS Article I, §8 Article II, § §1-3 Article III, §2 10th Amendment 4th, 5th, 6th Amendments 14th Amendment

3. Crime and the states • 10th Amendment “police powers” • Most crimes state matters • State criminal procedures differ • “Voluntariness” and “totality of circumstances” determine admissibility of confessions

4. 14th Amendment impact • Requires states to follow “due process” • “Selective incorporation” makes Bill of Rights guarantees limitations on states • Congress can enforce 14th Amendment

5. Miranda context • March 1963: Patricia Weir, age 18, rides bus home from work in Phoenix • Kidnapped/raped/robbed of $4 • Police called

6. Weir’s description • Late 20s Mexican/Italian male • No accent • Mustache • Under 6 feet tall • Weight @ 175 • Short curly hair • Dark-rimmed glasses • Drove Ford or Chevy

7. Problems Weir not a good witness/victim • Did she or attacker remove clothes? • Did she fight? (Arizona law requires resistance) • Why evasive in response to questions? • Why not able to pass lie detector test? Case almost dropped

8. Family steps in • Weir points out to brother-in-law green Packard like attacker’s in neighborhood • Tells brother-in-law car had rope handle in back • Brother-in-law tells police Weir has mental capacity of 12-year-old • Police trace car to Ernesto Miranda’s home • Ask Miranda to come to police station

9. Ernesto Miranda • In trouble with law since grade school • Reform school for burglary and breaking/entering • Detention for burglary and Peeping Tom • Dishonorable Army discharge • Prison for car theft • Produce worker when arrested

10. Police actions • Not told under arrest • Told “you flunked” line-up even though Weir could not identify • Not told of right to counsel or silence • Interrogated for two hours • Confession on typed form Miranda told to sign containing statement that confession voluntary

11. State court process • Miranda receives appointed counsel for trial in state court • Counsel moves to exclude confession as 5th /6th Amendment violations • Trial judge denies motion

12. Trial • Confession admitted into evidence • Several prosecution witnesses testify • No defense witnesses • Miranda convicted of rape & kidnap • Sentenced to 20-30 years in state prison

13. Meanwhile. . . When police are focusing on a particular suspect in custody, refusing to allow that suspect to consult with an attorney and failing to warn the suspect of his right to remain silent violates Sixth Amendment right to counsel (Escobedo v. Illinois, 1964)

14. State court appeal • Miranda’s pretrial confession not “knowing and voluntary”(Escobedo) • Weir did not “resist to the utmost” as required by Arizona law

15. Arizona Supreme Court • Distinguishes Escobedo: Police reasonably could assume man with Miranda’s criminal background would know rights • Miranda failed to ask for counsel

16. U. S. Supreme Court Allowed certiorari because of disagreements among courts throughout country about meaning of Escobedo • Escobedo needs clarifying

17. MIRANDA DECISION Distills “fundamental fairness” standards into one statement Eliminates case-by case analysis of “totality of circumstances” Issues “bright-line” rule all states must follow

18. Constitution & Miranda: What can be done? Executive Congress States

19. Executive Responses • Assistant Attorney General William Rehnquist denounces Miranda • President Richard Nixon says Miranda will undermine police efficiency and help increase crime • Nixon promises to appoint “strict constructionists” to overrule Miranda

20. Congress’s response • House minority leader Gerald Ford introduces “Crime Control and Safe Streets Act” • Amends §3501 of U.S. Criminal Code to restore “totality of circumstances” test • Requires case-by-case judicial analysis to determine voluntariness

21. State responses • Most strive to comply; print cards • MO: OK to give warnings after confession? • N.Y: OK to use confessions • obtained in violation of Miranda to impeach defendant? • CO: Confession OK even if defendant insane? • RI: OK to use spontaneous confessions?

22. Subsequent history • Solicitor Generals think §3501 unconstitutional and refuse to raise in prosecutions • Nixon appoints Rehnquist to Supreme Court • Court carves out several exceptions to Miranda • Justice Scalia urges courts/executive to invoke §3501 (Davis v. United States, 1994)

23. Dickerson v. U.S. (2000) • 4th Circuit sua sponte rules Miranda not constitutionally grounded • Holds §3501 of Safe Streets Act (1968) overruled Miranda • Forces U.S. Supreme Court to address issue

24. Supreme Court Are Miranda warnings compelled by the U.S. Constitution? C.J. Rehnquist: Yes—4th, 5th, & 6th A’s “Miranda has become embedded in routine police practice to the point where the warnings have become part of our national culture.”

25. Dissent—Justice Scalia • Voluntariness of confession should be touchstone • Miranda has no constitutional moorings and majority knows it • “Preventing foolish (rather than compelled) confessions is … the only conceivable basis” for Miranda rule

26. What of Ernesto Miranda? • Re-tried without confession • Common-law wife testified against him • Convicted and again sentenced to 20-30 years; paroled 1972 • Made money printing, autographing, & selling “Miranda” cards • Killed in bar fight

27. What does this case study demonstrate? Federalism: State responsibility for criminal law State police procedures 14th Amendment: How due process affects Bill of Rights Judicial process—state and national Responses of political branches Importance of political culture