Rachel (00:00) So Krystal I thought we'd do things a little different today. Instead of covering a crime, we're going to cover the aftermath of one. Do you know where the Miranda rights came from? Krystal (00:12) No, I don't actually really don't. And I could have read notes and found out, but I wanted this to be a genuine surprise Rachel (00:19) So we've all heard them. The cops recite them on TV shows. I think you and I could recite them at this point. Krystal (00:23) Probably. How often, like just curiosity's sake, how much of a percentage-wise do you think you could accurately read off to me? Like 80 I feel I could do? At least I think I could 100 % the first like five sentences I think. Rachel (00:35) I Yeah, and probably the same. I probably could do at least most of it pretty accurately. Krystal (00:45) Yeah, I believe I feel like you could do better than I could just with some of the attachment you have laterally to law. I like you could. I listened to a lot of interrogations, so to fall asleep, maybe I picked them up in my sleep. Sorry, distraction. Go ahead. Rachel (00:53) You That's all right. So there is an actual story behind it. It's messy. It was controversial. And it started with a crime in Phoenix in 1963. So back in March, 1963, Phoenix, Arizona, an 18 year old woman reported being kidnapped and sexually assaulted and police started investigating immediately. They get a partial plate and they track it down to a man named Ernesto Miranda and bring him in for questioning. yes, and that's where this thing where I should have had more tea this morning. Krystal (01:26) So his name was Miranda. Got it. Okay. Okay. you Rachel (01:36) And this is where things start to matter to our story. He is questioned for two hours. He has no lawyer present. He's never told he has the right to remain silent. And he eventually signs a confession, which police used at trial. Krystal (01:52) And see, wonder, because back then in the 60s, if Miranda didn't exist, they use the read technique, they're allowed to lie to you. Like there's certain things that are within the realm of okay. So I'm so curious what it was like back then because even now we have some really crazy stuff like where they turn the recordings off and they say, you're gonna say this. So I wonder how bad it was back then like the wild west with no rules in place for people to know these are my rights, you know? Rachel (02:20) Exactly. So at the time, this wasn't unusual. Police could question you for hours and you would sign a confession and courts used what they would call voluntariness standard. Basically, does this confession seem voluntary? Yep. Good enough. Which seems crazy to me. So basically, if they think it sounds good. Krystal (02:39) ⁓ One, didn't know voluntariness was a word, voluntariness standard, they just, does this sound like you voluntarily said it? Is your saying the kind of line they drew? Rachel (02:53) Mm-hmm. Yeah, so it's subjective. And at the time, interrogation tactics were evolving, psychological pressure, isolation, implied threats, like we're just talking about, none of it technically illegal. And that's what set the stage for the appeal because he's convicted. He's tried and convicted. And then we get the ACLU involved. So they argued his confession shouldn't count because he didn't know he had the right to remain silent or the right to an attorney. Which are your fifth and sixth amendment rights? Which I'm going to be honest, I didn't realize the right to an attorney was in the sixth amendment until I read all the words in the sixth amendment. Krystal (03:33) I like to watch lawyers on YouTube. one of them... I'll have to remember which one, but one of them had this really neat way of... when they were in law school memorizing all of the all of the amendments and it was really interesting because there were a lot that I didn't know either like right to counsel, right to have to be right to trial, you have a right to be judged by your peers. I can't remember all of them but I feel like there were some that I was like I just thought that was makes sense but I didn't realize there were amendments Rachel (04:05) So the argument goes all the way up to the US Supreme Court, and the court takes the case in 1966. So the Supreme Court questions, does the Fifth Amendment, the right against self-incrimination mean anything if a suspect doesn't know that they can remain silent? And the same goes for the Sixth Amendment. If you don't know you have a right to an attorney, how can you say that your right was protected? Krystal (04:29) let's go back to that percentage I asked you earlier. If you had to pick a percentage of just the standard adult American, maybe it's just any, I'm sure kids know the Miranda. rights you have the right to remain silent anything you say can and will be used against you in court you have right to an attorney if just to that point i listen to interrogations i'm like why is this idiot talking like you know they just told you you don't have to speak so i don't know if you're just so nervous and you think Okay, well want to know what they know so I'm gonna talk to you or you're innocent and you're like I want to know what so guilty or innocent a lot of people just curiosity you're like wait, why am I here? What do you think I did do you think you're smarter or do you not know your rights? Rachel (05:12) Yeah, so on June 13th 1966 the court rules that police must inform suspects of their constitutional rights before custodial interrogation and I think that's where it comes in So Miranda rights must be read only when both of the following are true at the same time. You are in police custody. This means a reasonable person in your position would not feel free to leave. Custody only with or without a formal arrest and you're being interrogated. Krystal (05:42) Okay, okay. So interrogation with got it. Got it. Okay. Rachel (05:48) So with that, the Miranda warning is born. And let's read that classic version that we all know. And we'll see how much you got right. So you 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 an attorney. And if you cannot afford one, one will be provided for you. It's simple, it's clear, and it changed policing forever after that point. Krystal (06:11) Yeah, that is about, ⁓ so it's not longer than that. I bet it's only those, wow, okay. All right, I guess I always figured that was all I just retained. was like, maybe that's where my memory cuts off. But okay, good, there's only those four points. Rachel (06:15) It's super short. Yeah. So what do these rates actually protect you from? They're going to protect you from being coerced from a coerced or uninformed confession. They make sure suspects know that they can stop talking and they make sure that they know that they can ask for a lawyer. We've all seen it in the TV shows. I want my lawyer and they have to get up and walk out immediately. Krystal (06:28) Thank I've always found that fascinating and as the, it's almost, as soon as they say, think I want to talk to an attorney, it's like, fine. Like they're so mad and I can't really blame them, but you can just see the officer be like, whatever. Rachel (07:03) But I always find it interesting the people who keep talking afterwards. Krystal (07:07) Yeah. Mm-hmm. Yeah. And again, is that because they think they're smarter or is it because they don't truly understand their rights the better chance of nothing happening to you is not saying anything at all. Just not saying anything with or without a lawyer. And like one of the lawyers I watch says if the law can't work for the worst of us then how's it going to work for the best of us? this is so fascinating to me go ahead sorry throwing you off here Rachel (07:35) That's all right. You're good. So in addition to being informed about your rights and also standardized interrogations, because before Miranda, each police department pretty much had their own approach. And now after Miranda, there's a national baseline. So, but here's something that's interesting. Miranda writes, don't stop police from questioning you. They just make sure you know you don't have to answer. Krystal (08:01) Yeah, that's interesting that they're using different techniques or standardized techniques to be sure they can use this. I want to be able to use what you tell me. Rachel (08:12) Yeah, and contrary to popular belief, if they don't read you your rights and your statements thrown out, it does not mean that the case is going to disappear. Krystal (08:22) Yeah, I do know that. That's fine. We'll find another way. Rachel (08:27) And that's what happened with Miranda. So the Supreme Court threw out his confession and he was retried without that confession and he was convicted based on other evidence. But here's something that I wasn't aware of when I started digging into this. There's a twist. After he got out of prison, Miranda actually made money signing Miranda rights cards for police officers. Krystal (08:38) interesting, okay. signing them like baseball cards. Rachel (08:56) Like a baseball card, yeah. And I guess on a little twist of irony, in 1976 he was killed in a bar fight. The suspect in his murder? He was red, his Miranda rights. Krystal (08:58) you Yeah, that is some irony right there. Rachel (09:10) Like, just, I don't know, full circle. It's kind of poetic and tragic all at the same time. Krystal (09:14) circle of life. ⁓ Yeah, yeah, because you know this is one of those if it doesn't work for the worst of us. Okay, I didn't, I guess in my mind I was like okay this is someone who was like I didn't do anything, no one read me my rights. When if I had to create the best story I could have of how Miranda came about it would have been someone who was unfairly accused and they used a confession that you were coerced into giving and you had a really great lawyer and they were like, well did you explain to them that they, you know, I see that. But to see that it happened for someone who ultimately was convicted anyway is a little crazy. Like so it was a case of he was guilty. Right or wrongfully convicted, a jury of his peers have said okay you're guilty so he's guilty. And now this is a standard from the 60s. I mean, we're talking, what is that? Math is hard in the morning, but 60 years? Yeah. Rachel (10:12) 60 years ago. Krystal (10:14) Yeah, that's fascinating. That is fascinating. Rachel (10:17) It is pretty fascinating. So the Miranda rights are one of the most recognized legal protections in America, but they're also one of the most misunderstood. mean, like I said, I went back and read the fifth and sixth amendments. mean, there's a lot of words in there and there's like small bits of it that say self-incrimination and legal counsel. But people, think that because they're on TV so much, they think they're just a technicality that's just for TV. they hold real power and they're balancing the power between the state and the individual that is being read that writes. Krystal (10:54) I pulled up, okay, in plain English, the 27 amendments. So you have right to freedom of speech, speech and religion. We know that one, freedom of speech. Right to bear arms, so right to hold it, to have a gun. No forced housing for soldiers. So the government can't make you quarter troops in your home in peacetime. I did not know that one and that's the third one. That's kind of crazy. Search and seizure limits. Police generally need a good reason to search your things. Fair treatment in serious cases. So due process, no double jeopardy. can stay silent and the government can't take property without fair process. Rachel (11:37) And I find that interesting that that's looped into the fifth. Krystal (11:40) Yeah, because that's fair treatment in serious case. So is that the right to remain silent? that the Fifth Amendment is the, okay, it's weird how it put it in that term, because I did ask like, kind of layman terms why. that is, in no double jeopardy. Rachel (11:46) Mm-hmm. Krystal (11:54) Your rights for a criminal trial. So you have the right to a speedy trial, a jury of your peers, you get the right to know your charges, confront witnesses. Supino witnesses and have a lawyer. So that's all in number six. so seven is jury in major civil cases. So the right to a jury trial in many federal civil lawsuits. Eight is limits on punishment, no excessive bail, fines, no cruel or unusual punishment. I've seen that one argued where it's like this bond is much higher than the crime and they feel like that someone's just making an example out of them Anyway, so number nine is people have the right beyond what's listed. That's an ominous one. Rachel (12:40) I guess it's kind of like if you're only stating speech, religion, due process, the right to remain silent, then you're kind of like saying, that's it. If it's not written down, it doesn't exist. And we know that's not true. There's other things that are true. that's probably. Krystal (12:47) Mm-hmm. Yeah. Mm. Yeah. it. So 10 anything not granted to the federal government is left to the state and people. Limits suing states. It makes it harder to sue a state in federal court without its consent. ⁓ Election rules. Changes how the electoral. College votes for president and vice president. 13 abolished slavery and involuntary servitude. 14 is Anyone born as a naturalized here is a citizen. States must provide due process and equal protection. 15 You can't deny someone. voting rights based on race, 16, federal government can tax income. By 16. Direct election of senators, people elect US senators. Prohibition and alcohol was 18. Is that saying that 18 means we can't ban alcohol or 18 is when we did? Do they stop some of these? Rachel (14:02) I think it didn't abolish prohibition. Krystal (14:06) It says banned alcohol, but it's in this one's I just pulled layman's terms. 19 would be women's suffrage. Can't deny voting based on sex. Terms and transitions changes are yeah terms and transitions. This is 20 changes start dates for President Congress Period shortened. ⁓ 21, sorry. Repeals prohibition ends the ban of alcohol. Here we go. goodness. right, presidential term limits, there's number 22. DC gets electoral votes, there's 23. No poll tax on 24. can't charge a fee to vote in federal elections. 25 presidential disability and secession. Rachel (14:31) There we go. Krystal (14:46) 26 the voting age at 18 and 27 congress pay changes can't take effect until after the next election okay i'm curious why that one had to be an amendment that's a rabbit hole i can already tell it's just gonna make me stomp around the house for a week Rachel (15:01) Yep. ⁓ I think we should skip discussing for twenty seven. ⁓ Krystal (15:09) For sure. Okay, so that's interesting. I like this one. I like that we talked a bit about this because it is something that I like to listen to in my free time. And you just kind of take for granted when they're reading it off of where that came from. And it sounds like they didn't, I wondered when we talked about doing it. an episode like this if there isn't be a change in the way they're read. But it doesn't really sound like it. It's just reading directly from the amendment. So it's probably really never changed, I would guess, unless they added an amendment and felt like that's important to mention. But it sounds like it's always pretty much been the same since the 60s. Rachel (15:45) Yeah, but it's still evolving. the courts continue to refine what counts as custodial interrogation, what counts as a waiver, and what happens when the police don't give the warning. at the end of the day, the core sentiment remains the same. You can't exercise a right. You don't know what you have. So that's a little history on, why those things are read, why we hear over and over again on a, on the TV shows. And we all have it probably mostly memorized. Krystal (16:14) So what stayed the same is the base rule. It still stands. Police must give a warning before custodial interrogation. Congress doesn't legislate Miranda away. So Miranda can't be overridden. There's no chance of doing that is the core. You start there and it does no other thing can negate those things. So that has been a big practical shift. You usually have to invoke your rights clearly. Silence isn't enough. So in 2010, the court held that simply staying quiet during questioning doesn't automatically invoke the right to remain silent. It has to be unambiguous and answering questions after warnings can be treated as a waiver. So if you answer at all, okay. Asking for a lawyer creates a strong stop rule. We've seen that where you say the word lawyer. It's like, are you asking for a lawyer? Okay, bye. And they just get up and walk out and they're like, well, wait, I still have questions. So once you clearly request counsel, police generally must stop questioning interrogation until a lawyer is present unless you reinitiate. can't question first and warn later as a strategy. 2004 is when they made that change. Not everything gets thrown out if Miranda is violated. Even if the warnings are missed, physical evidence discovered from unwarned but voluntary statement. Okay, so recent change, 2022. you generally can't sue for money damages just for a Miranda violation. So the court held that Miranda violation does not by itself allow a civil damage lawsuit. So Miranda has been kind of tightened over the years, but it hasn't changed. It's the procedure of how they use it, but not the way they read it. it sounds like they've read it the same way always. At least I guess. Rachel (18:04) And since we have a 2022 change, I bet you will see some more changes down the road, especially like as you you think about all the things that come into that are, you know, technology driven. How, you know, how does that change those things? It'll be interesting to watch and to see. Krystal (18:04) Fascinating. Yep, I was going to say that. cell phones, Google Anything else? Rachel (18:21) Well, that's I've got for you this week. So we'll have to, we'll do some more. Yeah, we'll do some more of these precedent setting cases and how things came to be. mean, you started off the top of this episode with a bunch of ideas. So we've got, we've got some stuff. Krystal (18:25) Well, wonderful topic. Yeah. Yeah, I am here. I would like to continue having these, thinking about how these all came into place and how we have these rights, would have never thought to do that. So I appreciate you Rachel (18:49) No problem. All right, so that's all the time we have for today. Our break is over. Krystal (18:53) right, bye coworkers. Let's roll the outro. Rachel (18:56) Bye coworkers.