Tuesday, 7 October 2003
http://www.azstarnet.com/star/Tue/31007MIRANDA.html
|
Facts about the Miranda rights * The Miranda rights are guaranteed by amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
These rights must be read any time law enforcement officers are questioning
a suspect in a "custodial setting" where the suspect is not
free to leave. They don't necessarily have to be read, for example, at
the beginning of a routine traffic stop. The rights are: |
By Joseph Barrios
ARIZONA DAILY STAR
They're recited millions of times every year. You've probably heard them on TV cop shows, if not in person.
"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 ..."
The "Miranda rights," named after a Phoenix man convicted of rape about 40 years ago in a landmark case, will be examined again as the U.S. Supreme Court begins its 2003-2004 term.
In December, the court will hear arguments in three separate cases that, although they originated outside Arizona, are being closely watched by law enforcement and attorneys here.Those rights are intended to protect all citizens from abuses of power, court observers say.
The Supreme Court's decisions this term could broaden the ways police question suspects and gather physical evidence. Any change in the law would have an immediate effect on how law enforcement officers do their jobs.
Locally, courtroom battles over Miranda rights happen all the time. In 2001, roughly 284,000 people were arrested for various crimes in Arizona, according to the FBI. Michael Bloom, a local defense lawyer, estimates that about 75 percent of those arrested had to be read their Miranda rights.
And just about any time a suspect says anything to a police officer, there's going to be a fight about it in court. Did the suspect understand his or her rights? Did the suspect properly waive those rights? Did investigators somehow coerce the suspect?
"This is everyday, nuts and bolts criminal defense," Bloom said. "This comes up in every case. And when the Supreme Court adjusts the Miranda rules, it has a drastic effect on law enforcement across America."
In one case before the court, Missouri v. Seibert, police intentionally questioned a suspect before reading the rights. After the suspect said something incriminating, investigators read the rights and re-questioned her about the crime. The court will have to decide which statements can be used in court.
Lisa Judge, a legal adviser to the Tucson Police Department, teaches an advanced class for officers that deals with Miranda rights. Once she hears that opinions in these cases have been filed, she plans to read the opinions to see if officers need to be retrained.
"If it's a decision that impacts in any way the way we do business, we act as quickly as possible," Judge said.
Judge declined to offer a specific prediction about what the court might decide.
Bloom predicts that in two of the cases, including the Seibert case, the court will side with police departments.
"What you're going to find is there's a very strong psychological compulsion to answer them again. 'The cat's out of the bag.' I think you're going to see a lot of interrogations without Miranda warnings," Bloom said.
"The unfortunate consequence of these decisions is going to be the Supreme Court is going to retreat from regulating police conduct," Bloom said.
But University of Arizona law professor Gabriel "Jack" Chin said he thinks any decision the court makes will be less significant than the 7-2 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 that upheld Miranda warnings as constitutionally based.
"After that, everything else is details," he said. "The reason that it's about details is that Miranda is fairly well-understood by everybody now. It's fairly easy to comply with in spite of the information that's conveyed in the Miranda warnings. A great majority of people waive their rights and talk, even after they've been warned."
Chin said all three Miranda cases this term have unusual circumstances. In regard to the Seibert case, Chin said he thinks the court will side with the suspect in the case, in part because police intentionally chose not to read the Miranda warning. He predicts the vote will be close but will side against prosecutors.
"I think they (the justices) are going to hate the case. Some because they don't like what the police did and some because they're being put in a terrible position when they have a deliberate, unambiguous violation of the law by law enforcement authorities," Chin said.
Local courts have no formal system to track how often challenges are filed based on Miranda rights.
Assistant public defender Ken Bowman, who has practiced law over the last 30 years in both Arizona and Wisconsin, said he's filed thousands of motions trying to throw out a suspect's statement based on Miranda rights.
Bowman said he recently tried to get statements thrown out on behalf of a man named Robert Gradillas, who was already in prison on an aggravated assault charge when he was suspected of a bank robbery. When detectives interviewed him in prison, Gradillas said he wanted to speak to a lawyer. But after hearing detectives say they had other evidence against him, he agreed to talk about the robbery. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to five years in prison.
But suspects' statements can be crucial in some cases, Bowman said. "As a matter of course you file a motion, because nine times out of 10, if it's not a flat denial, you try to get rid of it," Bowman said.
Defense lawyers can try to get statements thrown out under two circumstances: if police failed to properly advise suspects of their rights and any time a statement is taken under some kind of coercion.
Local police officers are well- trained in reading Miranda rights, said chief criminal deputy attorney Rick Unklesbay.
"It's rarely that black and white, that the police didn't advise" a suspect of his rights, Unklesbay said.
"It's always these little gray areas about ... the suspect's response. There's all these little minutiae of where the argument falls down. It's rare that we wouldn't (file charges) because of Miranda issues, but it's something we look at."
One Phoenix officer with a unique perspective is Marcus Aurelius, a retired homicide detective who investigated the slaying of Ernesto Miranda, the rights' namesake.
Getting used to reading the rights took a little time, Aurelius said. He can remember the "change" and said it took time to make it a part of basic police procedure.
"I think for the fellas who were more senior than I, it may have been considered a significant change, but for a lot of us who were coming on the department and engaged with the bad guys, it was just another thing to do. It wasn't so much of a problem," Aurelius said.
After Miranda's release from prison, in January 1976, Miranda was playing a card game at a bar in Phoenix when a fight started. He was stabbed and later died, at age 35.
Detectives later identified a suspect.
As Aurelius remembers the case, officers were required to carry around little cards with a script of the Miranda rights, which they diligently read to the Miranda slaying suspect.
"We talked to the guy, we gave him his rights, he was released and he fled. Later on, we had some info that was difficult to corroborate, but we did advise him of his rights," Aurelius said.
The suspect was never charged and, as Aurelius remembers, fled to Mexico.
Aurelius said use of Miranda rights "trickled down to those of us on the street" with some confusion for police and suspects. "At times, the bad guys would say, 'Well what does that mean? Can I talk to you?' You'd have to tell them, 'Well, you'll have to decide.' "
* Contact reporter Joseph Barrios at (520) 573-4241 or jbarrios@azstarnet.com.
Back to Story
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All content copyright © 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 AzStarNet, Arizona Daily Star and its wire services and suppliers and may not be republished without permission. All rights reserved. Any copying, redistribution, or retransmission of any of the contents of this service without the expressed written con