Week Thirteen, Part 4 - Crim: Rapist Beats The Rap

Thanks to cop shows and courtroom dramas, there’s one bit of law everyone knows: the police must advise criminal defendants of their basic rights. The Supreme Court case on point is Miranda v. Arizona.

In Criminal Law, Professor Tex Dutile sets out the facts. On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested and taken in custody to a Phoenix police station. There the complaining witness identified him. Police officers questioned Miranda in an interrogation room at the detective bureau. Two hours later, he signed a written confession. At trial, a jury convicted Miranda of kidnaping and rape. He appealed. Miranda argued that before securing his confession, the police had not fully advised him of his Constitutional rights.

By a slim majority, the Supreme Court agreed, and ruled Miranda’s confession inadmissable.

When I read the opinion, I see Miranda as a loss for the government: a rapist beat the rap. Dutile, however, presents it as a compromise.

“Defense attorneys get warnings for every defendant,” he says. “Prosecutors can use confessions. And since Miranda requires specific safeguards, it makes for fewer Due Process violations, thus helping law enforcement.”

Dutile adds, “The day before Miranda was decided, the Supreme Court considered the voluntariness of a confession on a case by case basis. Was there adequate lighting? Was there AC? Were there magazines?”

We laugh.

“But the Supreme Court is ill-equipped to look at every damned case! So one advantage of Miranda is that it attempted to be a bright-line decision.”

Dutile calls on Jenny Zimmerman, who grew up in nearby Mishawaka, Indiana. “Why is a subject told, ‘You have the right to remain silent’?”

“Because of the Fifth Amendment.”

“Which part?”

“The privilege against self-incrimination. ‘No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.’”

“Good. Now, Ms. Zimmerman, what’s the second warning?”

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

Dutile deadpans: “I like Frank Sinatra.”

The class laughs.

“And what’s the purpose of this warning?” Dutile asks.

“It lets the defendant know why he should keep his mouth shut,” says Zimmerman.

“Okay. And it inspires a feeling that ‘this is serious stuff!’ What’s the third warning?”

“You have the right to talk to a lawyer and have him present during questioning” says Zimmerman.

“Why all this talk about counsel?” Dutile asks.

“Part of the Sixth Amendment.”

“Does it buttress my right to remain silent?”

“Absolutely. When there’s an attorney present, the playing field is more level.” Zimmerman was a scholarship golfer at Michigan, so the sports metaphors come easily.

“And the fourth warning?”

“If you can't afford an attorney, one will be appointed.”

“Does it have to be immediately?”

“I don’t think so,” she says. “That wouldn’t be possible.”

“Correct. It might be three days later.”

A student in the back raises his hand. “Why should it be the responsibility of the police to tell a defendant his rights?”

“Well, in toto, the message of Miranda is not so much that you possess these rights, but that we’ll honor them. The assumption is that there’s intense coerciveness during interrogative custody. Coerciveness operates on my will, not my intellect.”

The student says nothing, so Dutile explains further.

“It’s not so much that the defendant knows his rights, but that he can’t be coerced. Protection against coercion is a Constitutional right. Nothing in the Fifth Amendment guarantees us a bright defendant.”

* * *