It probably is needless to recall the high court's 5-4 opinion in the 1966 case of Miranda v. Arizona. For the record: Ernesto Miranda, a 23-year-old itinerant, was charged with kidnapping and rape. After two hours of questioning, he confessed. The confession was admitted as evidence. Miranda was found guilty and sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison.
It is not clear whether Miranda had been warned that anything he said could be used against him, but clearly he had not been advised of his right to counsel. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote an interminable opinion in which he and his colleagues reversed Miranda's conviction (and the convictions of three other appellants in parallel cases).
Justice Tom Clark, dissenting, said Warren had gone "too far." Justice John Marshall Harlan, joined by Justices Potter Stewart and Byron White, also dissented. They criticized Warren's opinion as "poor constitutional law that entails harmful consequences for the country at large." For good or ill — mostly good — prosecutors have been stuck with Miranda ever since.
Monday's order in the Supreme Court, granting review in the case of Leeander Jerome Blake, provides an example of Miranda on steroids. These are the undisputed facts:
On Sept. 19, 2002, someone shot and killed Straughan Lee Griffin in front of his home in Annapolis, Md. There were two assailants. They stole Griffin's automobile and ran over his body as they fled the scene. Police soon arrested Terrence Tolbert; he was convicted two months ago for his role in the crime and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. A month after the crime in 2002, Tolbert implicated Blake. Anne Arundel County police went to Blake's home at 4:30 a.m. They arrested him on charges of first-degree murder, armed robbery and carjacking. Blake was then 17 years and 8 months old.
Of all the courses you will study in law school, constitutional law will probably be the most exciting, since the Constitution is the ultimate law of the country. The way it is interpreted can mean the allowance or prohibition of any federal, state, or local governmental activity. Generally speaking, that's w ....
If you ever practice in front of Judge Richard Matsch in the U.S. District Court for Colorado, I'd advise you to be on your best behavior. That's a lesson two lawyers for McDermott, Will & Emery would have been well advised to heed. ....
MTV's New Legal Affairs Head Not SurprisingNew GC Selected for Major Telecoms CompaniesLloyds TSB Led by HBOS GC Law Team ....
At headquarters, detective William Johns advised Blake orally of his Miranda rights, i.e., his right to remain silent, to have a lawyer at his side, and so on. The boy said he wanted an attorney and would not answer questions until he got one. Johns gave him (1) a copy of his Miranda rights and (2) a form detailing the charges against him. Mistakenly, the form indicated that Blake, if found guilty, could be punished by death. (Under Maryland law, capital punishment applies only to persons over 18.)
As Johns turned to leave, officer Curtis Reese made a gratuitous remark to the defendant: "I bet you want to talk now, huh!" Trying to undo the damage, Johns immediately said, loudly, "No, he doesn't want to talk to us. He already asked for a lawyer. We cannot talk to him now." The officers left, but when Johns returned a half-hour later to give Blake some clothes. Blake was ready to talk. He waived his right to an attorney and confessed his involvement in the crime.
Before long, as you will have guessed, Blake's lawyer successfully moved in the county circuit court to suppress his statements under the Miranda rules. In May of last year, Maryland's Court of Appeals agreed: Blake's statements after he requested a lawyer cannot be admitted at trial. "The motion to suppress was properly granted."
Speaking for a unanimous court, Judge Irma Raker seized upon officer Reese's suggestion to the defendant: "I bet you want to talk now, huh!" It was more of a comment than a question, but the court held that it "amounted to the functional equivalent of interrogation." Given the totality of circumstances — the pre-dawn arrest, the threat of death, the failure to provide counsel after Blake had requested an attorney — the evidence was o-u-t.
I don't know what evidence the state could provide, apart from the statements. Blake's counsel, Kenneth W. Ravenell of Baltimore, says there is none. Maybe yes, maybe no, but something is surely amiss when one offhand remark from one cop may let this defendant go free.
For the record, I began covering a police beat as a cub reporter in 1941. Remembering those pre-Miranda days, I would agree that Earl Warren's spread-eagled opinion has done much more good than harm. Even so, its application in Blake's case strikes me as a stretch too far. The evidence was fairly obtained. Let it in!
(Letters to Mr. Kilpatrick should be sent by e-mail to kilpatjj@aol.com.)
COPYRIGHT 2005 UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
This feature may not be reproduced or distributed electronically, in print or otherwise without the written permission of uclick and Universal Press Syndicate.
I loved your service and just received an offer! Heather
Facts
LawCrossing Fact #98: Want more money? Get a BETTER JOB!
Facebook comments:
total jobs
94,029
New Legal Jobs in Last 7 Days
8,993
job search tip
What about personal questions concerning marital status, number of children, health? Try to figure out the underlying concern. For example, the question What are your child-care arrangements? might address the availability to travel or work weekends. Answer the real question: 'I will do whatever it takes to get the job done.' Magic words: 'You can count on me.'
The Job Search Program that Guarantees Success.
Our career counselor creates a tailor-made job search strategy for you and walks you through every step of the process.
