Today in Supreme Court History: February 28, 1966

2/28/1966: Miranda v. Arizona argued.

The Warren Court (1966)

 

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Johnson v. M’Intosh, 21 U.S. 543 (decided February 28, 1823): Why do law professors like to play with the heads of 1L’s? In Property Law, instead of starting the course with some simple cases illustrating basic principles, they confuse new law students with this mishmash involving purchase of land from an Indian tribe, the granting of a federal land patent to someone else, the “doctrine of discovery”, “aboriginal title” . . . and almost all the opinion is dicta where they’re forced to listen to Marshall expound on the Rights of Whites by Conquest. There is no possible way this case helps them understand real life property law. (Another torturer of students in their first week of law school was Farnsworth, who decided to start his Contracts casebook with Laredo Hides v. H & H Meat Products, where the student is forced to learn a complicated formula for damages — this is, mind you, after a contract is formed, after it’s broken, and after it’s litigated on liability. “In medias rae” might be a good trick to use in fiction, but in teaching a course it’s poor, poor, poor.) As for the holding, it’s not worth mentioning because it didn’t pertain to the actual facts. Most law students would be better off if they could extract all memory of this case from their brains.

Cook v. Gralike, 531 U.S. 510 (decided February 28, 2001): state could not identify on the ballot those candidates for Congress who failed to support term limits (which BTW was like inviting couch potatoes to an exercise class; voters who support term limits by definition are too lazy to drag their asses to the polls to vote the rascals out)

Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (decided February 28, 2011): hearsay statement by police as to mortally wounded man’s identification of who shot him did not violate Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause; purpose of “emergency” interrogation was to save man’s life (he died in hospital a few hours later)

Texaco, Inc. v. Dagher, 547 U.S. 1 (decided February 28, 2006): joint venture’s decision to sell separately branded gasoline at same price was not illegal horizontal price fixing (the “joint venture” was between Texaco and Shell Oil, who agreed to sell “Texaco” and “Shell” gas at same price — how is this not an illegal “cartel”? — yet Thomas writes for a unanimous Court)

Delaware v. Pennsylvania, 598 U.S. 115 (decided February 28, 2023): other states successfully sue to prevent Delaware from hogging up abandoned MoneyGram orders; they go not to MoneyGram’s state of incorporation (Delaware, of course) but to states where they were purchased

Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (decided February 28, 1990): police entering with a warrant and arresting armed robbery suspect can conduct “protective sweep” of premises for individuals who might pose danger (during this “protective sweep” police found outfit matching description of what man was wearing at time of robbery)

[Michael P]

The Latin term you were looking for is in medias res, with diacritics in mediās rēs. Rēs, rei, f., is a classic fifth declension noun, and in takes the accusative case for this use (in this instance the plural), although it takes the ablative in other uses.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks.

I learned the term in tenth grade when we were studying "The Odyssey". As I understand it it was a common technique in classical literature.

[Michael P]

It occurred to me after fully waking up that it might have just been a typo of “a” for the adjacent “s”.

And in part I wanted to finally justify having kept my high school Latin reference books for the past three decades….

It is a common technique in storytelling, although as you noted earlier, it's often a distraction in pedagogy. The Odyssey and The Iliad are some of the oldest known stories to use it -- it's remarkable how enduring they have been, and how much more impact they have had than the (few) other non-religious texts we have that are of comparable age.

[Krayt]

However, like ancient religious texts, they are poetic myth retellings.

Hmmm...

[Dr. Ed 2]

Much to the surprise of many, the city of Troy was found to actually exist and there is increasing archeological evidence verifying things Homer said.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/in-search-of-troy-180979553/

[Mr. Bumble]

It's way too early for this.

[SRG2]

Could you point on this doll to where Johnson v. M’Intosh touched you? 😉

[defaultdotxbe]

I had a math teacher once who made us take the final exam on the first day. Naturally we all failed badly, but he gave them back to us the day before the actual final (it wasn't the exact same test so we weren't able to glean any answers from it) to show us how much we had learned over the semester.

I wonder if there is some similar thinking going on with this case?

[Dan Schiavetta]

I doubt it, since (IIRC) we were never tested on the "right of conquest" and "aboriginal title". The test was on real-life property situations.

But I do like what your math teacher did. He was an original thinker and interested in effective teaching techniques. Alas many law professors are not, and are not.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"I had a math teacher once who made us take the final exam on the first day."

That's actually a sound educational practice called "pretesting." You need to know what your students already know (and don't know) in order to adjust your curriculum to meet their needs. Everyone is supposed to do some form of this, and most don't bother -- gotta love the Never Educate Anyone (NEA), the teachers' union.

Giving it back the day before finals is also a confidence booster -- and you want to know what the students actually know and not how scared they are... But I'd be very surprised if said teacher didn't go through the tests at the start and say "hmmm... they're strong on this but not on that..."

[Dan Schiavetta]

SRG2:

That case was the first in the standard Property Law casebook which my property professor, being new in the job, naturally followed.

She was pretty obnoxious at first (she got better in the second semester). She was overweight and black and in private I gave her the obvious nickname for a black, overweight property professor (the former law students here can guess what that might be). My (black, stridently activist) girlfriend, a 3L, was offended. Until a few weeks later I was awakened by her giggling.

[Bob from Ohio]

Need to reset the "days without bragging about sex" clock to zero days.

I love the casual liberal racism too!

[Noscitur a sociis]

in private I gave her the obvious nickname for a black, overweight property professor (the former law students here can guess what that might be)

I genuinely have no idea what you’re talking about, but… Jesus Christ.

[Dan Schiavetta]

"Blackacre"!

(I suppose you had to be there)

[Dr. Ed 2]

I would have guessed "Blackrock" -- Black, (intellectually) dense, and large.

[Frank Drackman]

We get it, we get it, you like the dark meat. During med school there was a big fat black Internal Medicine Resident, and Internal Medicine collects the Flotsam and Jetsam of Medicine, those without the dexterity to be Sturgeons, personality for FP or Peds, don’t like dealing with Snatches, or with the Insane, the sharp ones are just checking the box so they can move on the Cardiology or Derm, anyway, whenever there was a big enough crowd, we’d yell

“HEY HEY HEY!!!!”

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

From what I've seen from the sidelines, those who deal with the insane are (a) not overly bright and (b) likely insane themselves.

I remember discussing an undergraduate with one of these Voodoo Scientists and after discussing his behavior (laying on the floor in a semi-alert status), I asked him why the hell they was prescribing Ativan (Lorazepam) to that student. In fairness, this was the "on call" person but still after the expected psychobabble, I bluntly asked "Do you consider it medically wise to prescribe Ativan to a patient such as I've described? A HYPOTHETICAL patient."

He agreed that it was not.

Hence my inevitable next question: "Well, why are you doing it?"

"We aren't -- the VA is."

Trying to remain professional, I responded "have you ever considered telling him not to take it? Or, better, having a chat with the VA so you are all on the same page?

"That's not our job."

There are a lot of things I dislike the Voodoo Scientists for, but Dereliction of Duty is unforgivable in my book.

I can live with the internists....

[Kazinski]

I think you misunderstand Texaco v Dagher.

"It was a joint venture between Texaco and Shell to create a single legal entity, from Wikipedia:
"Under the joint venture agreement, Texaco and Shell agreed to pool their resources and share the risks of and profits from Equilon's activities. Equilon's board of directors would comprise representatives of Texaco and Shell Oil, and Equilon gasoline would be sold to gas stations under the original Texaco and Shell Oil brand names. The formation of Equilon was approved by consent decree, subject to certain divestments and other modifications, by the Federal Trade Commission,[2] as well as by the state attorneys general of California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington."

So a single entity was wholesaling gas to independent service stations (almost all branded service stations are independently owned franchises) who set their own retail price. The same facilities were selling the same gas at the same price to independent retailers, who were setting their own retail price.

Once the joint venture was approved, the rest seems foreordained. On what basis could they justify different prices when the product would have exactly the same cost to produce?

[Dilan Esper]

FWIW Marbury v. Madison is an abstruse opinion on an issue that never comes up in practice, and yet all Con Law courses seem to start with it.

[Frank Drackman]

Ironic that when Miranda was murdered in 1976 the suspected killer was read his Miranda rights.
Think I first heard that on Paul Harvey's 'The Rest of the Story'

Frank

[Bob from Ohio]

"Miranda was convicted in 1967 and sentenced to serve 20 to 30 years. ... Miranda was paroled in 1972."

Further ironic that instead of being murdered, he should have still been in prison. Five years for "kidnapping and rape of an 18-year-old woman"!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Will you be similarly rooting for Trump to remain in prison so that he can't reoffend?

I wouldn't mind house arrest if it involved no internet, limited television, no golf (and limited outdoor activity), extremely limited telephone, a prescribed menu, no business activity, and other attributes of the customary prison experience.

But if Trump dies in prison that might be the most just result.

[Frank Drackman]

I think the same about Jerry Sandusky, who's chances of getting out are about as slim as '45' going in, funny how almost all the Prosecutors are shuck and jive Black Surpremericists who'd be in jail if they didn't live in shitholes like NYC, ATL, and the District of Coloreds,

Frank

[Bob Coulson]

The soft on crime era is not missed. We're still too soft on crime, just not as soft as we used to be. Willie Horton is another great example of how soft on crime politics lets predators prey on people, which is why liberals are desperate to pretend it's a race issue instead of a crime issue.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The soft on crime era is in full swing, at least among clingers.

Trump.

Eastman.

Giuliani.

Chesebro (that one seems to be heating up).

Navarro (is he behind bars yet?).

Weisselberg (seems to be headed back to jail).

Bannon.

Manafort.

Gates.

Flynn.

Meadows.

Clark.

Ellis.

Roman.

Nauta.

De Oliveira.

Stone.

Cohen.

Papadopoulos.

Powell.

[bernard11]

I don't quite get what you think Texaco and Shell did wrong.

If they privately agreed to charge the same price then yes, that's plainly illegal price collusion (even without Russia in the picture).

But it sounds more like they formed a JV ("Equilon") to combine refining and distribution, and the sold to Texaco and Shell stations at a common price.

Whether they had the market power to be called a "cartel" is not clear to me.

[Dan Schiavetta]

O.K. I'll look at it again.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I used to work in the fuel business and while I would fill my truck at the Texaco tank farm, my receipt would say “not Texaco branded fuel” even though it came from the same big tank.

The issue I would have is fraud — each of the companies claim that their brands of gasoline are unique and here they are selling identical gasoline as being two different unique brands. How is that not fraud?

And the other factor is a franchise/lease arrangement that they must buy their gasoline from a specific company.

I can see why they would want to have a joint venture for refining and distribution, particularly distribution because each tank truck has (usually) 3 different compartments which if all were filled would exceed the maximum allowable weight of the truck — this allows you to take up to three different products in the same truck for drops at one or more locations. (It’s metered when it goes into the truck, not when it comes out.) And most stations only have two grades of gasoline (87 & 93) with a computerized pump mixing the two for the mid grade(s) — no, Sunoco doesn’t have 7 different tanks…

And in rural areas, it is a whole lot cheaper to deliver to both gas stations in town at the same time. Gas stations have 12,000 gallon tanks so you don’t have to fill the entire tank in one drop (actually can’t because of weight limits) so if you are taking a load one place, a good salesman will see if a nearby place will accept a couple thousand gallons and usually they will.

Gasoline as a whole varies wildly depending on region and season (EPA mandates although “winter” gas has always had more Butane in it so cars will start in cold weather) but the difference between brands are the additives they include — detergents, lubricants, etc.

Now you could have a refinery producing segregated brands with segregated (big monster) tanks and then this segregation being maintained in the trucks — if they did this, which I doubt as a joint venture would be to produce a singular product.

It’s not fraud to sell brand-name gasoline as generic unbranded gasoline, but to sell it as being that of a different brand name?

[John F. Carr]

"each of the companies claim that their brands of gasoline are unique"

Details matter here. I have not seen that precise claim. More like "MobTexaCitgo Power Premium has a patented carburetor cleaning compound."

[Dr. Ed 2]

That's the "Tier 3" ad for a specific combination of additives that (I suspect) was funded by the additive manufacturers. And cars haven't have had carburetors for 40 years.

I don't pay attention to it, but I remember seeing a lot of advertisements for specific brand name's version of 93 octane gas.

[bernard11]

each of the companies claim that their brands of gasoline are unique and here they are selling identical gasoline as being two different unique brands. How is that not fraud?

How is it fraud? It is routine for companies in the same market to sell identical products, while claiming all kinds of advantages for their individual versions.

The objective is to create, in the mind of the consumer, a distinction that doesn't actually exist, so they can push themselves out of the pure commodity business, and eke out a small price premium that way.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You're right -- Edy's and Dreyer's ice cream are the same thing.

[Syd Henderson]

Well, they could have put the corpse on the stand as in the trial of Pope Formosus.

[Dan Schiavetta]

There is such historical detail as to the adventures of poor Formosus's corpse that one struggles to find what he did in life, and what made him so reviled afterward.

[Syd Henderson]

What I read was that there was a rule at the time that a bishop couldn't become Pope. Stephen VI was a bishop consecrated by Formosus, hence the trial so the consecration was invalid. As near as I can tell, poor Formosus was a decent but Stephen got himself strangled.

I wonder how much the story has been embellished. The 10th and early 11th centuries were the lowest point in the history of the Papacy except maybe the Great Schism.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Indeed. The 900’s have been called the “Iron Age” of the Papacy, although this might be historiographical misogyny because a main criticism was that it was controlled behind the scenes by women.

More generally, for centuries the Papacy was a kind of Maltese Falcon pursued by grubby factions and it was hit or miss whether the slightly-less-corrupt faction got the prize. As someone put it, the average President of the United States has been a better person than the average medieval Pope.

[Krayt]

More generally, for (all human history) the (any powerful organization) was a kind of Maltese Falcon pursued by grubby factions and it was hit or miss whether the slightly-less-corrupt faction got the prize. As someone put it, Fundamental Theorem of Government: Corruption is not an unfortunate side effect of the wielding of power. It is the purpose of it since day 1.

GTFY (Generalized That For You)

[Noscitur a sociis]

Dude…

[Bob from Ohio]

"dog whistle "

It was a train whistle. You should get a hearing aid.

[Bob from Ohio]

"far worse in his mind"

I am a real estate lawyer. I knew it was Blackacre from the start. its the common term for peal estate in hypos. . Black and big as an acre, HA HA funny!

He was using her race as a epithet. But its ok because his alleged black girl friend supposedly laughed!

[Nige]

'Fundamental Theorem of Government'

Don't forget billionaires and corporations. Y'know, the least accountable guys!