UNIT 4: Case Study

CONSTITUTIONAL TEXTS

Article I, §8

Article II, § §1-3

Article III, §2

10th Amendment

4th, 5th, 6th Amendments

14th Amendment

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

14th Amendment impact

• Requires states to follow “due process”

• “Selective incorporation” makes Bill of Rights guarantees limitations on states

• Congress can enforce 14th Amendment

Miranda context

• March 1963: Patricia Weir, age 18, rides bus home from work in Phoenix

• Kidnapped/raped/robbed of $4

• Police called

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

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

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

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

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

• Miranda receives appointed counsel for trial in state court

• Counsel moves to exclude confession as 5th /6th Amendment violations

• Trial judge denies motion

State court process

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

Meanwhile. . .

When police are focusing on a particularsuspect in custody, refusing to allow thatsuspect to consult with an attorney andfailing to warn the suspect of his right toremain silent violates Sixth Amendment rightto counsel (Escobedo v. Illinois, 1964)

State court appeal

• Miranda’s pretrial confession not “knowing and voluntary”(Escobedo)

• Weir did not “resist to the utmost” as required by Arizona law

Arizona Supreme Court

• Distinguishes Escobedo: Police reasonably could assume man with Miranda’s criminal background would know rights

• Miranda failed to ask for counsel

U. S. Supreme Court

Allowed certiorari because of disagreements among courts throughout country about meaning of Escobedo

• Escobedo needs clarifying

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

Constitution & Miranda: What can be done?

Executive

Congress

States

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

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

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?

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)

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

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.”

• 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

Dissent—Justice Scalia

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

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