GREENFIELD — “You have the right to remain silent,” begins the familiar police Miranda warning, read during arrests and popularized by many a police drama.
But do you know where it came from?
At Greenfield Community College Wednesday, retired Superior Court Judge Bertha D. Josephson told an audience of roughly 100 students gathered to celebrate Franklin County Law Day about how a legal technicality led to one of the most famous Supreme Court decisions of all time.
Her speech was followed by a discussion on the topic involving Josephson, defense attorney Jennifer Cox, Assistant District Attorney Caitlyn Rock and Greenfield Police Officer Cody Guilbault.
The now-familiar Miranda warning first came into being in 1966 as a result of the landmark Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona, Josephson said. The court’s 5-4 ruling held that Ernesto Miranda, a 23-year-old man with a ninth-grade education who had confessed to and was convicted of kidnapping and rape, had not truly offered his confession in a voluntary fashion nor had he been advised of his rights to a lawyer before being interrogated. With the ruling his conviction was overturned.
Though Miranda was later retried and convicted on the available evidence, the case became one of the most cited in the history of American law and the requirement to be informed of those Fifth- and Sixth Amendment protections established by the ruling are commonplace today.
In a twist of fate, Josephson said, Miranda was later murdered in a bar fight, and his killer, who eventually fled to Mexico, was read the rights that bore the name of his own victim.
Josephson said the case highlights the importance of a strong, independent judicial branch, especially in light of a congressional attempt to override the Miranda warning requirement that the Supreme Court later struck down 7 to 2 in 2000.
“By then, the Supreme Court found the rights articulated in Miranda to be so accepted as to be unassailable,” Josephson said.
If Miranda had been argued today, she said, the Supreme Court, lacking a ninth member, would likely not have been able to make the same decision.
The panel discussion centered around a fictional scenario involving a minor being questioned by a police officer about a shoplifting offense.
The officer told the minor that he didn’t have to say anything, but didn’t appear to explicitly Mirandize him. Then, she told him that he and his 18-year-old sister, also involved, might go to jail if he didn’t fess up to what happened.
Cox, the defense lawyer, said Miranda warnings should have been given, especially when a child was the suspect, since any police questioning is inherently coercive.
Rock, the prosecutor, said she’d expect the defense to file a motion to suppress any confession if the case went to court, and any defense of it would be a tough sell.
“Most likely, it would be a losing fight on my part, because even though the officer wasn’t on duty, it was a pretty coercive environment,” she said. “When an officer tells you you’re probably going to jail, I’d have a hard time arguing voluntariness.”
Guilbault said even though the victim looked like he may be older, a positive identification should always be obtained and Miranda should always been given.
Guilbault spoke to the intricacies of deciding when a suspect should be Mirandized, including when that should take place if a witness becomes a suspect.
“If a witness becomes the suspect, stop and Mirandize them,” he said.
Cox noted that while Miranda doesn’t need to be read in any particular way, the person delivering it needs to be sure they explicitly hit each right, every time. Many officers carry a card with the exact wording from the case on it.
Guilbault described a time he’d be lax on a proper reading, and how it cost the department a conviction later on.
“I’m glad that happened early in my career, because now I know that’ll never happen again,” he said.
You can reach Tom Relihan at: trelihan@recorder.com
or 413-772-0261, ext. 264
On Twitter, @RecorderTom