Today in Supreme Court History: February 28, 1966

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

The Warren Court (1966)

 

Comments

[Frank Drackman]

Must have been cool to have your “me” rights read to you

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Ernesto Arturo Miranda had been arrested in 1963 based on evidence he had committed a kidnapping and rape.

He was interrogated for several hours without a lawyer or being advised of his right to remain silent. The Supreme Court found the resulting confession tainted, but he was retried and convicted.

Accused people are allowed to waive their rights and, in various cases, are pressured to do so. Confessions are sometimes still suspect. There are also various exceptions to the Miranda rules.

Miranda was killed in a bar fight a few years after his release from prison. The man suspected of killing him invoked his Miranda rights and refused to talk to police. He was released and never charged with Miranda’s death.

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

But in Englland a policman can violate Miranda and the evidence stays and he gets disciplined. At least once it was that way.
And that serves justice better

[SRG2]

In England the current caution says that you have the right to remain silent, "But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court" - which is rational.

And see: https://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights

[Dan Schiavetta]

In "Our Mutual Friend", 1864 (Dickens), the inspector warns Harmon at the beginning of questioning that anything he says may be used against him. So the rule is an old one.

[SRG2]

That was the standard caution up until IIRC the mid 90s and then they replaced it with the one I mentioned.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Because they got more enlightened!

No, seriously, if Richard Nixon had managed to pull off a new rule like this he'd have been (rightly) criticized for stripping Americans of their constitutional rights.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Nixon didn’t have a chance: President Johnson signed a statutory repeal of Miranda in 1968.

[A Woman of No Importance]

The difference is that here, most of the time the police don't get disciplined. So excluding the evidence is, as a practical matter, the only way to deter police misconduct.

[Dan Schiavetta]

They're not going to get disciplined (or will get only a slap on the wrist) if their misconduct results in the arrest of a factually guilty person, or leads to the identification of the perpetrator.

[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 res” 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. Law students would be better off if they could flush all memory of this case from their brains.

Cook v. Garlick, 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 find the armed shooter (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 -- sounds fishy, but had been approved by the FTC)

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 sweep police found outfit matching description of what man was wearing at time of robbery)

[SMP0328]

Cook v. Garlick, 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)

So you think support for term limits is based on a desire to not vote? It couldn't possibly be about incumbents automatically being renominated for the umpteenth time and the voters who share the incumbents view, but believe the incumbent has become stale or corrupt, not having a real choice. They either vote for the same-old, same-old or vote for the other candidate, whose views those voters do not share. Nah, couldn't be that, must be laziness.

Also, you didn't fully explain the reasoning of the case. The Court ruled that putting a Scarlett Letter next to the names of candidates who did not support the preferred type of Congressional term limits violated those candidates' rights to free speech.

[Malika]

It's less laziness and more the time honored thinking of "too many people don't do what I'd like them to do so let's take away their ability to make that choice."

[Dan Schiavetta]

Bill Clinton put it aptly in a 1992 debate:

"I know term limits are popular, but I'm against them. I'll tell you why. I believe, number one, it would pose a real problem for a lot of smaller States in the Congress who would have enough trouble now making sure their interests are heard. Number two, I think it would increase the influence of unelected staff members in the Congress who have too much influence already. I want to cut the size of the congressional staffs, but I think you're going to have too much influence there with people who were never elected who have lots of expertise. Number three, if the people really have a mind to change, they can."

Term limits prevent the reps from accumulating knowledge and experience. They will be at the mercy of their more knowledgeable staff.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Doesn’t seem like he said anything about laziness.

[SMP0328]

From Dan's original post:

voters who support term limits by definition are too lazy to drag their asses to the polls to vote the rascals out

[Dan Schiavetta]

Clinton was giving a reason why term limits were a bad idea.

If you remember the excellent British TV series "Yes, Minister", you see how Jim Hacker, the elected rep, is regularly played for a fool by the experienced Sir Humphrey.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Clinton was giving a reason why term limits were a bad idea.

He was. But whatever the merits of that (really those) reasons, they had nothing to do with your bizarre claim that the people who support term limits are “by definition are too lazy to drag their asses to the polls to vote the rascals out”.

If you remember the excellent British TV series "Yes, Minister", you see how Jim Hacker, the elected rep, is regularly played for a fool by the experienced Sir Humphrey.

Is there any suggestion that the situation will improve if only he serves in parliament a bit longer?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Yes.

As the series progressed into Yes, Prime Minister, Hacker became wiser to Humphrey’s ways.

It seems like an obvious point to me.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"If you remember the excellent British TV series "Yes, Minister", you see how Jim Hacker, the elected rep, is regularly played for a fool by the experienced Sir Humphrey."

I once told a fellow "Yes, Minister" fan that Sir Humphrey Appleby represented the Deep State, and they didn't like my choice of phrase.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Maybe because you were wrong about that.

[SMP0328]

Term limits prevent the reps from accumulating knowledge and experience. They will be at the mercy of their more knowledgeable staff.

Presidents have been elected who lacked any experience running the executive branch of any State or local government. They were not at the mercy of their staffs. Are new members of Congress at the mercy of their staffs? As for the institutional knowledge of Congress, maybe we would be better off with new members of Congress who weren't so concerned with such knowledge.

[Dan Schiavetta]

"Presidents have been elected who lacked any experience running the executive branch of any State or local government. They were not at the mercy of their staffs." IOW, relevant experience is a bad thing. I can't believe you're making this argument.

[SMP0328]

IOW, relevant experience is a bad thing. I can't believe you're making this argument.

Nice strawman. My argument is that relevant experience, while helpful, is not essential to performing a job.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

pose a real problem for a lot of smaller States in the Congress who would have enough trouble now making sure their interests are heard.

I don't think that is a very good argument.

The second reason is more valid. As to gaining knowledge and expertise, some can still be obtained. As with judges, I wouldn't mind a term limit of a significant size, such as 12-18 years.

It still isn't a leading concern of mine over other things.

As to the third reason, voter inertia is a reality. For legislative races, often, many don't even show up. Not great, but it's reality.

A term limit that addresses that reality and the special benefits incumbents have (including financial) is at least a somewhat reasonable thing. It puts in new blood by regulation, regulation regularly a matter of realizing the "free market" has problems.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I take it you and Dan agree that we should repeal the twenty second amendment before the next election? MAGA 2028, baby!

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Chief Justice Marshall was Mr. Dicta.

Andrew Jackson and the Constitution: The Rise and Fall of Generational Regimes by Gerard N. Magliocca provides some helpful insights into Marshall's votes in the Native American cases.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Yes, he was, indeed, "Mr. Dicta".

He knew he was setting the tone and the role of the future Judicial Branch. He can, to a point, be forgiven for that.

[SRG2]

Re Bute - I must have missed the phrase "Protective sweep" in 4A.

[A Japanese Student]

Noncitizen Local Voting Rights Case (Third Petty Bench, decided February 28, 1995): Noncitizens do not have the right to vote in mayoral elections; as dicta, Court rules the Constitution itself does not prohibit noncitizen voting for local government

Theft Case (Third Petty Bench, decided February 28, 1995): "Insanity" under Code of Criminal Procedure means lack of competence to stand trial; physicians and deaf education specialists should evaluate whether the defendant (who is illiterate, deaf, and unable to communicate orally or manually) is incompetent to stand trial and courts should suspend the proceedings until showing of competence; rejected claims of speedy-trial violation because the prosecutor could move to dismiss case if the defendant is unlikely to gain competence (Concurring, Justice Chikusa notes that the Court could also dismiss the indictment) (at that time Penal Code still had a congenital deafness defense/sentence-reduction (repealed three months later))

EemaX Trademark Case (Third Petty Bench, decided February 28, 2017): Defendant in trademark infringement suit cannot challenge the validity of registration after five years of registration, on the ground that the mark was already in use at the time it was registered; defendant can still claim that suit constitutes "abuse of rights" (such as when brought against original user)

House of Representatives Nagasaki's Fourth District Special Election Case (First Petty Bench, decided February 28, 2019): Election-dispute suits under Public Offices Election Act cannot be based on claims of 18-year-olds voting in violation of the Constitution (which guarantees "universal adult suffrage"; between 2016 and 2022, voting age was 18 while the age of majority was 20)