GREENFIELD — “You have the right to remain silent,” begins the familiar Miranda warning read by police during arrests and popularized by many a drama.
But do you know where it came from?
Retired Superior Court Judge Bertha D. Josephson told an audience of roughly 100 students gathered Wednesday at Greenfield Community College to celebrate Franklin County Law Day about how a legal technicality led to one of the most famous Supreme Court decisions.
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 was established 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 voluntarily nor had he been advised of his right 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 protections afforded by the Fifth and Sixth amendments is commonplace today.
Josephson added that in a twist of fate, 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 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 by a 7-2 vote 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 did not have to say anything, but did not appear to explicitly read him his Miranda rights. Then, she told him that he and his 18-year-old sister, also involved, might go to jail if he did not confess.
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 would 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 a positive identification should always be obtained and Miranda warnings should should always be given.
Guilbault spoke about deciding when a suspect should be given that Miranda warning, including if a witness becomes a suspect.
“If a witness becomes the suspect, stop and Mirandize them,” he said.
Cox noted that while the Miranda warning does not 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 when he was 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.