Deviant Criminology
Dr. Richard Weaver Jr., Heather Kenney, and Rachel Czar take listeners on a journey through the world of true crime. With their unique careers in the criminal justice and academic world; they work to provide an entertaining and educational experience for listeners. This podcast examines many areas of true crime including; the formation of laws, cases that defined caselaw, and crimes that impacted the world. Please join us on this journey as we transition from professionals in criminal justice and academia to budding podcasters.
Deviant Criminology
Understanding the Miranda Warning
Can a single Supreme Court case redefine the very essence of police interrogation? Tune in to this gripping episode where we unlock the dramatic journey leading to the establishment of Miranda rights, setting the stage with the historical context of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Discover how the landscape of American criminal justice was irrevocably altered by the tragic experience of an 18-year-old woman in Phoenix, whose case ultimately led to a landmark ruling. We dissect what it truly means to be "in custody," using relatable examples from domestic violence cases to traffic stops, and clarify the critical moments when Miranda rights must be invoked.
Our conversation takes an emotional turn as we unfold the heart-wrenching case of Sean, a victim found years after another child's abduction. Hear expert insights into the psychological and survival mechanisms at play in such dire situations, and the paramount importance of having proper legal representation. We emphasize the crucial role of knowing and invoking one's rights during police questioning to avoid self-incrimination. Drawing from key Supreme Court cases like Rhode Island v. Innis and Michigan v. Tucker, we explore the delicate balance between upholding defendants' rights and maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.
Finally, we spotlight the strategic advantage of remaining silent and seeking legal counsel when faced with police interrogation. Learn about the sophisticated tactics law enforcement officers use during questioning and why even innocent individuals might inadvertently provide incriminating information. We also shed light on the grand jury process and the pivotal role attorneys play in navigating the legal system. Join our community on our website and social media platforms to stay engaged and informed about your legal rights.
www.deviantcriminology.com
I'm Dr Richard Weaver.
Rachel:I'm Heather Kenney and Rachel Zahr.
Dr. Weaver:Today. What we're going to talk about is one of the most important things that I think has happened in rights since the foundation of the Constitution. So the United States Constitution was founded and ratified in 1788. And then in 1791, the Fifth and Sixth Amendments were added. So the Fifth Amendment covers issues like double jeopardy or that you cannot be compelled to be a witness against yourself, which is why you'll hear some people talk about in court pleading. The Fifth and then the Sixth Amendment includes a section that suspects and criminal prosecutions have access to the assistance of counsel for his or her defense. Yet it wasn't until 1966, so 175 years after the Fifth and Sixth Amendment were added to the Constitution.
Dr. Weaver:The law enforcement officers were required to inform suspects, once they are in custody or restrained of their freedom from movement, that they must be read the following statement that has been heard by anybody that has watched any law enforcement television show ever made in America. That goes that 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. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. If you decide to answer questions now, without an attorney present, you have the right to stop questioning at any time, to stop answering questions and to seek or talk with an attorney. That is what is known as the Miranda rights. But what kind of led to this requirement? So I think the first thing that kind of I want to throw out was like what is being in custody really look like in me.
Rachel:Basically in custody has several different meanings and it's changed many times over the years. There is a degree of am I free to leave? There is a degree of am I in a position or setting that I would think that I was able to decline to comply with the requests that are being made of me. So there's definitely a difference. We'll say, in a domestic violence case, when the police show up and they're talking to one party in the living room and the other party in the kitchen, the whole idea of being in custody at that point in time probably not there, because you're in your own home, you're talking to the officers. No decision has been made as to whether a crime has even been committed. It could just be a welfare check at that point in time. So something like that in general is not considered to be in custody check at that point in time. So something like that in general is not considered to be in custody.
Rachel:Being pulled over on the side of the road, like, for instance, on a DUI case that's something that has come up in the past. Is that in custody and the court has ruled it's not. But at the same time, if you were to say am I free to go, most people would say no, I don't think I'm free to go if I'm sitting there as part of a traffic stop, and of course, that's something that has become more in focus over the last few years. On the flip side of it, if you are in a police car and you're under arrest, you're considered in custody. If you're at a police station, generally you're considered to be in custody when you are the focus of the investigation and basically the police believe that you've done it. At that point, depending on where you're at, generally you're considered in custody.
Heather:Yep. And even if you're in custody, if the police are not interrogating you, then they don't have to read you the rates either. So, like Heather was saying, if you're in the back of a police car, you've been arrested. No police officer is talking to you. Maybe you're talking to yourself or to your buddy who's back there with you. If they happen to have a recording device going and you make a statement, there's no problem with them using that against you later in a criminal proceeding. Even if you weren't read any rights. It's not any way like get out of jail free card. Generally, it is important to know. Yeah, the police do have to read you these rights. You have to be aware of them, but only in certain circumstances.
Dr. Weaver:Yeah, we always called those the spontaneous utterance when you're just driving and you don't ask anything and suddenly they're like that wasn't my weed, weird stuff that people would yell from the back of a car, but that was also. Like so many people see laws black and white is also like so many people see laws black and white, but like as a cop, like the miranda warnings, like everybody does it kind of different, because there really is no like oh, this is definitely the point. They're detained because we were always taught it's the reasonableness of the person's belief that they're being detained. So, like me, if I put cuffs on you, you in the back of the car, I just read you, your wife rights. I'm covering all aspects. But so with this, the question is how did we get here and where did this miranda warning come from that police officers have to read. It kind of actually stems from a really tragic case and the sad thing is sometimes with these especially supreme court decisions is the underlying case gets lost in the mix, like I don't know how many supreme court cases like we've heard of but yet we don't know why, like brown versus board of education, like what really happened and things like that. So on this one. It's really a sad case. So, um, a little bit of a warning that this, uh, there is some mention of sexual assault in this. So the case is on march 3rd of 1963 in phoenix, arizona, louise ann jameson who has changed her name since this case went to trial and everything An 18-year-old woman had been working at a concession stand at the downtown Phoenix movie theater.
Dr. Weaver:So she gets off work, she walks to a bus stop. She catches a bus home. When she gets off the bus and reaches her stop, she starts walking towards her house and she observes a car kind of in the area. At some point that car pulls up nearby and the driver jumps out. That driver is later identified as Ernesto Miranda. He forcibly drags her into his car. He then proceeds to tie her up with ropes and Miranda tells her that he's not going to hurt her if she complies and reports that she didn't scream for help or anything. I think I've worked some of these cases and stuff thing, which I think I've, you know, worked some of these cases and stuff. I think that's actually more common than we talk about is that women don't scream, they comply. And just me, from my background, like if sometimes, like that's my daughter. Like you better scream and yell and bring attention like I don't know.
Rachel:Is that common in cases that it's more complying than that's been my experience and I think part of that goes into a survival mechanism. A lot of these cases, when you study them, I can think of at least one specific one involving a child. When this specific defendant was targeting young people, he would usually kill the person when he was done with them. But this one person, sean, he was able to survive. But part of why he was able to survive they think because of you never know why somebody changes their pattern was because he was so compliant and he kept trying to convince the defendant you don't need to kill me, I'm fine, I'll stay here, I'll do this with you. Basically, why get rid of me? You already have me. Why not cut your losses and not risk anything else and just keep me around? And it worked for years it was something like six years. The defendant didn't take another child and it was only when that person was getting old enough that he wasn't interested in him anymore that he took another child. And the investigation into that next child's abduction is what led them to Sean eventually, over many, many years. And when they went back and looked, there were several different things, like the case had been on television and a neighbor saw his picture and said, wow, that really looks like you. And he was adamant that's not me. And at one point there was a web page trying to generate leads and he actually went and visited and said something to the effect of will you ever stop looking for your child? And so I think that on some level there's a survival mechanism that kicks in.
Rachel:I had a colleague who had worked in Wyoming for a while and her feeling was she hated the groups that would advocate for fighting and trying to escape and things like that, and she had a very specific case in her mind where there was someone who was a serial rapist and he would always rape them and let them go.
Rachel:But the specific case that she had, the girl fought back as hard as she could and he ended up killing her.
Rachel:So I think there's a lot of different aspects to it and I think it's very difficult for us to try to go back through a specific case and ask why did the victim act the way they did? And I think sometimes there's times when it is appropriate to fight back and sometimes when it's not appropriate to fight back, especially when you're talking about a circumstance that you may lose your life, and whether that's the case or not. If a victim perceives that if I cooperate and if I don't scream, maybe he'll let me live, I think that that's something that on some level, you have to consider, especially if you are looking at this as a trier or a judge of the facts of the situation. But yes, in general I would say people comply rather than try to fight or escape, and sometimes I think they're just waiting for that moment where they think it will be their chance to get away and they just never feel like they see that chance.
Dr. Weaver:Yeah, and I think again, if somebody's saying I'm not going to hurt you if you just comply, I think it's easier to say well then, why not do?
Heather:Right, I don't have any professional experience in this realm, but personally I tend to be a little naive and I would really want to believe that, like okay, this is a bad guy, he wants to do some bad things, but maybe he won't do worse things if I just try to get along with him. I think you know there's at least some of us who. That's just sort of our natural reaction.
Dr. Weaver:So in this case again, and she didn't scream for help or anything. So Miranda drove in the car for about 20 minutes to a secluded area in the desert. He stopped the car and that's when he sexually assaulted the victim. So after the assault he then drives her back to the city and drops her off in the same area that he abducted her from, which, right there. I think that shows some comfortableness with what he's doing. So I think there's some things that maybe we don't know in the history. There, as he dropped her off, he asked her to pray for him, which I think is a really weird thing to ask, like there's something in there that psychologically was wrong. So at that point Anne runs home, she tells her sister what had occurred and her sister calls the police. So at that point Anne runs home, she tells her sister what had occurred and her sister calls the police. A detective arrives and she describes a rapist as a Mexican man. Says he's about 27, 28 years old and about 5 foot 11 inches tall, 175 pounds in weight. Says he's got short, black, curly hair and dark-rimmed glasses.
Dr. Weaver:The woman met with detectives and told them that the car that the assailant had driven was green or gray and had dark upholstery with stripes. About a week later one of her family members actually spots a car in the neighborhood that matches the description and got a partial license plate, but then to come back and just hang out in the area. Again, there's some type of depravity there that's hard to put a finger on. But anyway, the detective identifies three or four Hispanic men that match the description, which includes Miranda, and Anne was called to the station to identify her rapist. So they bring in these three to four Hispanic men along with Miranda and they do a lineup. In the lineup though, she cannot positively identify miranda, she just merely says that he looks similar. But the detectives tell miranda that he failed the lineup and she positively identified him so and was brought to the room.
Dr. Weaver:Uh, miranda was asked whether that was the girl that he had sexually assaulted, to which he responded in the affirmative. So detectives didn't question Miranda for another two hours. The detectives do not inform Miranda at that time that he had the right to have an attorney present. And then detectives asked Miranda if he was willing to sign a confession, to which he agreed, which I think again, sometimes I've seen that done, I think nowadays with technology, like I usually never ask them to sign anything because we had it all on video, but at this time again 1966, you're asking to sign a confession, and then, eventually, miranda had confessed to the kidnapping assault of Ann. His confession was then used at his trial, to which he was then convicted by a jury, and the judge sentenced them to 20 to 30 years in prison. That was not the end of the. That would lead to a much larger appeals in case, rachel, if you would like to explain that some more.
Heather:The specific point of contention in the case was he defendant was not informed of his right to have an attorney present specifically during the questioning, and so later he did have a court-appointed attorney who very wisely, at trial raised this issue and said hey, this was in violation of his Fifth Amendment right perhaps, to have counsel. Or maybe, sorry, took them right to counsel. Or his Fifth Amendment proof of litigation against self-incrimination? Sorry, took them right to counsel. Or his Fifth Amendment proof of litigation against self-incrimination. The trial court basically decided that Mr Miranda could have asked for an attorney but didn't ask for an attorney. There was no obligation for the police to proactively tell him that he had the right for that, so there was no violation. They appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court initially, but they upheld the conviction. So he appealed again to the United States Supreme Court and apparently this was a common sort of thing to happen at the time. So when the case Marina versus Arizona was heard by the US Supreme Court, it was one of four cases with similar facts and the fact patterns went something like this there was a defendant or a suspect in a case questioned by police officers or a prosecutor in some sort of isolated room, and that goes to the ultimate outcome of custodial interrogation. This is sort of the most obvious case. You are in a police station somewhere, you are separated from everyone around you and they are asking you questions. So the most obvious scenario where those rights would have to be read to you, and in all four cases the defendant did not get a full, effective warning of their constitutional rights and they all four ended up having a confession, I think mostly written, but one just an oral confession, but in all cases that was used against them to convict them of various crimes. So it seems like really nationwide, before we had the Supreme Court case, police and prosecutors had kind of a lot of latitude to elicit confessions without people really being aware of the potential implications of these confessions, which is sort of a nice way to say like cops can be really sneaky. Like if you're being questioned, the cops are not your friends, and that is the most important thing. I want everybody listening to this, everybody hearing this, hearing this, to understand like if a police officer is asking you questions about about a crime, be aware they are probably not trying to help you with it unless you were the direct victim of that, that crime and you know, it was apparently within their, their scope to do this at the time, to get confessions out of people without telling them the potential outcome of that confession. So that's how these cases came to be. It was happening all across, I think, california and elsewhere in the US as well.
Heather:So I mean, I've never personally been arrested, never been interrogated, but quite sure I would find that a really intimidating experience and I assume most people do so. If you think about it, there's an inherent power imbalance, right, you have the police interrogating someone. The police have the power, especially if they have you close up in a room or in the back of a car you don't know if you can leave, maybe you have handcuffs on and they're asking you questions and you're scared, right, and some of us, when we're scared, we just run our mouths. So it seems like when the Supreme Court did end up deciding that people have to have this full warning given to them, like you need to know before you talk what can happen as a result, right, this can be used, can and will be used, against you in a criminal case. It's sort of correcting that imbalance a little bit right To make sure that the suspect or the person being interrogated knows they don't have to cooperate, and if they do cooperate it may not be in their best interest to do so. Right, and the whole application to Mr Miranda there, I guess, was if they had told him he could have an attorney present during the confession or during the questioning, the attorney may have said dude, shut up, right, don't say anything. Then he wouldn't be in the situation that he is in. If they had specifically told him you have the right to an attorney, then that sort of helps him. Then invoke his Sixth Amendment, right to counsel that attorney, if they were present, might have helped him. Invoke his Fifth Amendment, privilege against self-incrimination right. Think of the right to remain silent. Either not knowing about or not. Invoking those two is really what got that confession into court.
Heather:And after the Supreme Court decision we do have a specific rule now Prosecutors cannot use statements obtained during custodial interrogation unless the interrogation was conducted pursuant to certain procedural safeguards, and that's what the rights are. They are making sure that those rights were guarded, to make sure everybody's aware of them. As a result, it was decided Mr Marina did not have correct and full and proper warnings of his rights, so the US Supreme Court sent the case back to trial in Arizona and for it went out for retrial. For the retrial, they could not use those confessions the oral and the written confession that were illegally obtained. You know, another warning for you they were able to convict him again, though, based on the other evidence right, presumably witnesses and I don't know what else they had there but just because there was a Miranda violation. All it means is that particular confession will be excluded. So it doesn't mean that your whole trial will be thrown out or the charges will be thrown out or anything like that. It just means they can't use that particular statement to try to obtain a criminal conviction against you. But yeah, he was convicted again. That's sort of what happened there.
Heather:And that's why now we have or so I'm told we have, when people are arrested, right, this script that police read to them, because the police want to preserve as much evidence as they can. They want to hand it all over to the prosecutor so they can put you in jail. You know, depending on, I guess, at which side of the table you're sitting on in that moment, that could be awesome. Look, we have all this perfectly preserved evidence we can use. But if I think about being the person who it is being used against use. But if I think about being the person who it is being used against, I want to give them as little as possible. So think about that, right. I'm going to say never talk to the cops, but like think really hard about it.
Heather:If someone is ever telling you you know you have the right to have an attorney here, really listen to that. I know sometimes there's the implication that but if you ask for an attorney, you're saying you did something wrong and no, I think of it more like calling a time out. Oh, I have the right to have an attorney. Why are they telling me that? Stop, I think I'd like to talk to an attorney before I go any further, like just to see, because you can always come back later and say, okay, yeah, I've consulted with my attorney, I would like to speak with you now. Similarly, if someone reads me my Miranda rights and I decide, no, I'm good, I want to talk to you, I wave that right, that's okay.
Heather:Later on during the conversation, if I get a little uncertain or scared, I can say stop At this time, I would like an attorney and they have to stop talking to you then at that point too, or anything you say after that, they cannot use against you. So that's sort of what the practical implications are. But like anything in law, it gets complicated right Because real life is messy, and so people end up in a lot of discussions. We talked about what does it mean to be in custody, what does it mean to be interrogated? But there's like other questions about when Miranda does or does not apply, or if it does apply, there could be exceptions to where that confession or statements could be used. Anyway, heather, I think you have some information about that.
Rachel:Yeah, I was just going to add that there was in Miranda a printed statement at the top. I don't know if we mentioned this, but it says the statement has been made voluntarily and of my own free will, with no threats, coercion or promises of immunity and with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I can and will be used against me. I mean, he did have that verbiage saying that the statement I make can and will be used against me, but there's nothing in here that I found to indicate that he could read English or that he understood English or that you know when it's written at the top and it says I understand my legal rights. Again, I think that this is something Rachel would agree that there's nothing in the record that actually says he understood what those legal rights were.
Heather:Right, and when you say at the top, was this at the top of his written confession?
Rachel:Yes, at the top of each sheet of the printed certification that he had written out his confession on. But again, did he actually read it?
Heather:I don't know who knows and I don't know. I just feel cautious. It feels a little bit like a gotcha. Right, the police put at the top of the sheet I understand my my rights. Okay, what rights like? Do you know what they actually are? How can you understand them if you don't, if they have not been delineated for you so you know it? On on the one hand, it's a huge decision um, you did change how interrogations happened but on the other hand, clearly we have we have this, this evidence here that people were already doing something similar. Right there's at the top of the page. It said I understand my rights, I'm I'm waiving them, so you know. In that sense, it's sort of like the decision itself was more of making that more explicit, rather, rather than creating a whole new aspect to police work and investigations.
Dr. Weaver:Well, and in that like, if you look at the form, it was pre-printed, was the statement. So I don't know how they did it, but it's very possible they just put this form down and said oh, this is where you write your confession down, this is just telling you your rights. They may not have read it to them, because now you're required to read it to them. Then they could have just been like been like oh, this is telling your rights, you can look over it. They didn't have to read it to him, they didn't have to make sure he understood it, and then he hand wrote his confession on it.
Heather:So they were just, they would just use this one form and give it to people all the time I mean, like I've been an attorney, I should do this, but I don't always read the things I sign, right? If it's a seven page agreement for something, I'm going to skim it. Does it look okay? Right, if I, if I don't know any better, and I'm sitting in a in a police room somewhere for what was a two hour interrogation, like I don't know? We don't have any info about whether he was hungry or thirsty or whether he was up too late, whether he needed to go to the bathroom, whether he had a dog at home he needed to let out, whatever it's very possible. He was just like, okay, I'm going to get this done as fast as I can, and just didn't read it very carefully. And then it does feel like I said a little bit like a gotcha. They've now trapped him into waiving rights that he really may not have been aware that he had.
Rachel:And I think that's a good point, especially like you're talking about the two hour aspect. There's other cases where it's much more time and again, like you said, needing to go to the bathroom or needing something to eat, and those are all things to consider and there seems to be this underlying idea in our culture historically that people will tell the truth. Confession is good for the soul. Why would you say you're guilty if you're not guilty? But at the same time we have things that happened before this, like the Spanish Inquisition. I don't know who would look at the Spanish Inquisition and say everybody who confessed under those circumstances they were telling the truth. And part of that is why we have the rules that we have, like no cruel or unusual punishment, because we saw things that happened in history and said we don't want those things to happen again. We don't want them to happen here. But we still have this underlying feeling or thought that people are going to honestly admit that they did something and not have a false confession. And I feel like the false confession is more of a recent idea as people get more into psychology and understand far more about mental states, same with mental illness, as was mentioned. He said please pray for me, and we said that that probably means that there was something a little bit off. But I feel like a lot of those things were not appreciated as much in the 60s as they would be now, whereas a statement like please pray for me would be oh, it's an indication of guilt for them versus for us. We look at that and say, obviously that person was disturbed and had something wrong with them. I think it's also interesting to note how much Miranda has changed over the years, because you look at the face of what it said, changed over the years, because you look at the face of what it said and it's not the end of the story. We have a lot more that comes after that.
Rachel:And specifically, like we were talking about, it can't be a written statement. It has to be verbally explained, it has to be something that they understand, it has to be a knowing waiver. So there's a lot of things that go into that, as far as if the person's mentally impaired, if they're intoxicated, could they actually voluntarily waive those rights? Did they have the ability to do that? And there's all kinds of other nuances. And, for instance, we talked about whether you're in custody and whether it's actually questioning. And if you're Rachel had mentioned talking to a buddy in a cell and they hear what's said, or if you are in jail and you're making a communication to somebody who's outside the jail, all of those are recorded and there's a potential, if you say something, they could use that.
Rachel:But there's specifically a case Rhode Island v Innes where a defendant was arrested and it had involved a shotgun and they knew that the gun was someplace but they didn't know where. And they told the defendant of his Miranda rights and he said he wanted to talk to an attorney, which, of course, according to Miranda, that's the end of the story. You have to wait for an attorney to show up. And the supervisor specifically told the officers do not question the defendant, he has asked for an attorney conversation. And one of the officers noted that there's a school nearby for handicapped children and there was a statement about gee, it'd really be too bad if a helpless handicapped little girl on the way to school finds the gun and accidentally kills herself. And as the defendant hears those statements, he decides gee, this could be really bad and I would hate for this to happen. So at that point he takes the police back to the scene of the arrest and tells them where the shotgun is so they're able to recover it.
Rachel:And that was one of those cases where they tried to introduce that into evidence and the Supreme Court said, no, you can't introduce that. He asked for an attorney and even though those statements were, it wasn't questioning, and we don't necessarily consider two people talking as an interrogation. The fact that you had this conversation and it was obvious that you were trying to elicit a response from the defendant, that is considered interrogation. So it's cases like that that, you see, they think what is, what is interrogation really mean? And then of course you have all kinds of other things like good faith exceptions.
Rachel:You know there's another case where statements were made prior to Miranda but the trial was after Miranda. So then of course you ask well, would that apply? Well, the facts happened beforehand but the trial happened after, and since it's involving exclusion of evidence because the trial happened after, and since it's involving exclusion of evidence because the trial happened after, the case law at the time should apply to the trial at that time. But the court kind of found a loophole in that where they said that there was basically the officers were not acting in bad faith and because of that it would not justify the recourse of the exclusionary rule. And that was under the Michigan versus Tucker case. Because they said that there was no justification to apply the exclusionary rule, which is aimed at deterring willful or negligent deprivation of the accused rights.
Rachel:So there was that idea put forth there as as a good faith exception, that when the police are doing something, if they're not trying to be sneaky or not trying to get you to incriminate yourself, if they're trying to do the best that they can, in that case they said they were going to let it in. So some of these might look kind of arbitrary, like why would you let it in one case but not in the other? Kind of arbitrary Like why would you let it in one case but not in the other? And I think that sometimes they consider the intent or good faith or bad faith of the officers and sometimes it seems like they don't. So sometimes it's interesting how these things turn out, where you can use it and where you can't use it.
Rachel:And there was also the Harris v New York case where the Supreme Court said that the prosecution could use the statements that he made to impeach his own testimony, and so in that case it involved a heroin case and when the defendant testified he was saying that he sold something that was baking powder and that he was intending to deceive the officer in order to obtain his $12. But they used his statements that he made at the time of his arrest, saying that he knew it was drugs, to impeach his statement saying, well, it was just baking powder. And that's another one where you'd say, well, it was a violation of Miranda. Why can they use it? It's because the defendant got up on the stand and lied and because of his lie they were able to use it to say what you're saying now is not true, but it's supposed to be used to question the credibility of the witness, not as evidence of the crime, which I think Rachel would agree is a question how do you decide what would be evidence of a crime versus what would be back to?
Heather:credibility Right, and you get in there and you argue about it in the courtroom, but at the end of the day, the jurors have now heard that bit of information and you can even tell them. Now you can't use this to decide whether he, you know whether he was guilty of the crime. But people's brains don't compartmentalize quite that well and all of those sort of nuances and arguments and decisions sort of confuse everything and everyone. So again, if you were in a situation where the cops are asking you questions, probably just don't answer them. Like, be aware, and you know, we have attorneys, we have brilliant minds who can come in and try to help you tease it out later. And you know, was this a violation of your rights? If so, can we get it excluded? Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Heather:But just as like a practical purpose, the reason they have to read you those rights is because they want we as a country want to be sure that the evidence we have, we use to convict people, was obtained fairly. But yeah, they want you to make a statement so they can use it against you. And they tell you that if you make a statement they're going to use it against you. So, like, take that at face value, time out, I am going to call an attorney. Thank you, there is absolutely no harm. I mean you may have to live in uncertainty a little longer. You may feel a little bit awkward saying that you want to consult an attorney, but that's one big reason why they are there. It's why they have to read it to you. So if you're able to not make that statement in the first place, then we don't have to have these court cases going on years later trying to tease out what purpose it can be used for. And were you in custody and were you being interrogated? Just keep your mouth shut.
Dr. Weaver:I think that's a big thing, just like coming from the police side, like don't be a moron. Like cops aren't idiots, like. So when you're saying like and I've seen that like and you know they portray it on tv, but let me tell you from real life experience, every criminal seems to think that they are smarter than the cops and they'll waive their rights, like, oh, I just, dude, I'm going to get you to say stuff.
Heather:You're going to say stuff to me I assume you, you and I say you. I know you're not currently, you know on a police force, but police officers are trained in interrogation, right? They know all the psychological tricks and how to get people to say stuff and like sometimes the stuff may not even be true, but by the end of the interrogation maybe I believe it's true and I'm confessing to things that I didn't do, or I've gotten confused, et cetera, like they are trained in how to get that out of you. So, even if you're the most innocent person, especially if you're an innocent person, don't give them information to use against you.
Dr. Weaver:Well, and even, like people think with an interrogation, like, yes, I'm reading your rights of what you don't say and can't say, but what we're also not telling you is your entire body and everything you're doing besides. The words coming out of your mouth are telling a story as well. So when you're like, oh, I'm just, I'm just going to make up stuff and lie, there are people out there whose whole life is dedicated to body language, micro facial expression, reading and we're getting all that on, especially now where you're getting all that on audio and video and you can go back and look at it and be like, well, see what he said here. But no, this excerpt can point out his frown line just changed a micro second and he smiled when you mentioned this moment in this crime. We think he did it. But then there's also the well, I'm going to talk in this interrogation, I'm going to say this stuff and, like heather pointed out, then you go to trial and you change your story.
Dr. Weaver:Well, remember when you confessed and said this is the interrogation? Well, now you've just committed perjury. Which one is it? Now we've discredited you and even if back then you made a mistake or now you're making a mistake, you've talked, we have it all. So it's you've got to be really careful with that. And I will definitely say, from a police officer's background and heather you can talk about this more of a prosecutor's thing is like it is better to say I need an attorney. Yeah, the cops are probably gonna say, well, you're gonna look guilty. But even if you're innocent, because it's not hard, the whole joke of you can indict a ham sandwich.
Heather:I don't know this joke Tell me more.
Dr. Weaver:You can pretty much get anything through an indictment into a trial, especially if you can get somebody to say some stuff in interrogation. After 12, 24 hours that they're sitting there deprived, you can be like, oh well, they messed up on this or they didn't get this fact and we think they did this, so we'd like to take it to trial. I understand that's a lot easier to do than getting it guilty. But now you're going through all this where if you had just got an attorney to come talk to them, it would have been easier.
Rachel:So and it's always um interesting, like you're talking about the ham sandwich analogy, whether you're going through the grand jury or filing by indictment Grand jury, you actually have people who come in for jury duty and they hear the facts of the case and they decide is there a probable cause for this to go forward and is there a very, very low standard of evidence that this could go forward? But when you actually get to trial it's a different standard. That standard is beyond a reasonable doubt and if you file an indictment, then you can have a preliminary hearing in which a judge decides instead of a jury whether there's enough evidence for it to go forward. But at that point a judge can dismiss it if they feel that there's not enough evidence. That rarely happens because usually if there's not enough evidence, somebody somewhere catches it before it gets that far down the road.
Rachel:But when it comes time for things like the grand jury, usually it's simply the prosecutor putting information forward. The defendants rarely come because at that point they've talked to an attorney and, as Rachel mentioned, if you go to the grand jury and testify before the grand jury, all of that is written down and because it's all on the record, then, just like it was mentioned, you face things like perjury because you swore under oath that that was true and all of those differences of well, you said this at the grand jury and now you're saying this other thing that contradicts it come up. So, as far as getting an indictment in front of the grand jury, it's easier to do that than to get a guilty verdict at a trial right and generally, the less evidence there is, the harder it is to prove the case.
Heather:So you can. You know you can't control, let's say, forensic evidence. You can't control eyewitnesses against you. You can't control cameras. There's cameras everywhere. They may have all this stuff to use against you. You don't need to add your own statements to it. You legally do not have to do that. They cannot make you do it, either when you're being questioned or at trial. And it seems it's surprising to me how many people will nonetheless just speak to the police. Either, like you're saying, they think they're smarter than the cops, or they get flustered, or they don't want to look guilty, or, you know, they think if they just cooperate a little bit, maybe it will, will go away. But it's like a hard line for me. I'm a smart person but I am not great at knowing when I'm being manipulated. So I think that's truer of most of us than maybe we realize. Cops can manipulate you. They can lie to you, protect yourself.
Dr. Weaver:But also from the law enforcement standpoint. In this case, it worked out for the victim. But when you push those lines and you try to bur those lines of when do I need to write Miranda, read Miranda, when do I need to make sure that they're not intellectually disabled or they don't have a diminished capacity or they don't understand the language to where you risk the victim not getting justice and somebody getting off of it because you want to blur that line or push that limit, not getting justice and somebody getting off of it because you want to blur that line or push that limit. Um, and in this case, luckily, again like he was found guilty, um, but sometimes I think, in this case especially, like when it went to trial or the supreme court, it's miranda versus arizona and we forget sometimes that there is a victim and that it was a kidnapping and rape. This wasn't just like some simple police thing, that there was a woman that was deprived of her normal existence now because of this man's actions. So two things on. That is a. She did change her name at some point, but a couple of years ago, a documentary came out in 2023 called Miranda's a victim actually and I really appreciate what they did is they brought her story and talked about that. So that's out there now.
Dr. Weaver:Finally, to kind of wrap this up, ernesto Miranda did not learn his lesson after going to prison. So he came back out of prison, was for the next 10 years fraught with charges of DUI, possession and things like that, and then in 1976, he was shortly about to be picked up on a parole violation. He went to a bar and got in a bar fight over a $2 bet that was made and during that fight Mr Miranda was stabbed to death. The police did detain a suspect who had his hand on the alleged murder weapon. Suspect who had his hand on the alleged murder weapon.
Dr. Weaver:Um, that individual, after receiving their miranda warning, declined to make a statement to the police and the killer fled and was never found. So that is the story behind um, the miranda warnings and why it's important to know your rights. And one of the reasons we wanted to do this kind of is because a lot of the cases we're going to get into later, miranda kind of plays a part, like we'll talk about confessions, false confessions, people not understanding their rights, and especially like when we talked about the Lizzie Borden case. And not only did she not know her rights? Not only did women kind of not exactly have the same rights, but also there were some drugs that were involved and stuff in that time. So really knowing rights as an individual, but also for police to know the importance of the standards that are required.
Rachel:You mentioned that it might appear that you're guilty if you don't give a statement. It should be noted that if you are at trial, the prosecutor cannot comment on your refusal or declining to make statements or testify as an indication of guilt. So if you are worried that if I don't talk to them I'm going to look guilty, you should know that at the end of the day nobody can stand up in court and say well, they didn't make a statement, so obviously they're guilty. We've seen recently in the court of public opinion that's not always true and sometimes people comment and say well, if they were not guilty they should have testified. But at least from a legal standpoint that cannot be held against you.
Heather:Slightly reassuring.
Dr. Weaver:And there's a big difference as we'll probably talk about someday between Miranda rights and saying yes or no and pleading the fifth. Those are two totally different things. I want to thank you all so much for listening to our little podcast. This is created with love and passion for criminal justice and true crime. So if you're enjoying the podcast, please follow us, like or rate us on whatever system you're listening to us on, subscribe to our podcast and download episodes. Downloads are important for our growth, as is growing our listeners.
Dr. Weaver:So if you wouldn't mind, take the time to ask your friends, family, co-workers, tell them about us through word of mouth, social media. I don't care if you even scream at strangers on the streets, to help us kind of get out there who we are. If you're interested in learning more, you could visit our website at wwwdeviantcriminologycom. There you'll find some stuff about our backgrounds, references, show notes for each episode. You can also follow us on our Facebook page at Deviant Criminology. We also have an Instagram page, which is deviant underscore criminology, or find me at drrichardweaver on Instagram, and as we grow, we hope to develop a community that will grow with us. So again, thank you for taking the time to listen and have a good week, thank you.
