PUBLISHED BY
LAW WISE
MARCH 2016 • ISSUE 5
Editor: Ron Keefover
Coordinators: Hon. G. Joseph Pierron Jr. • Anne Woods & Ryan Purcell, KBA staff
Greetings from the Kansas Bar Association (KBA).
Welcome to this edition of Law Wise and the fifth edition of the 2015-2016 school year.
IN THIS ISSUE
“Miranda: More than Words” Named 2016 Law
Day theme................................................... 1
Kansas Bench and Bar Leaders
Urge Reflection on Law Day........................ 3
Who was Ernesto Arturo Miranda?.................. 4
Lesson Plan 1: Miranda Rights for Juveniles:
Yarborough v. Alvarado................................ 5
Lesson Plan 2: Miranda v. Arizona
654 U.S. 437 (1966).................................... 6
Terrific Technology for Teachers....................... 7
March Buzz..................................................... 7
2016 Mock Trial Tournament Update............... 7
Dear Readers: NEW Law Wise Group.............. 8
Calendar of Events
March 25-26
S tate High School Mock
Trial Competition
May 1
Law Day
I
“Miranda: More than Words”
Named 2016 Law Day theme
n 2016, the nation marks the 50th anniversary of perhaps the nation’s
best-known U.S. Supreme Court case, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436
(1966). The Miranda Warning has become engrained in law enforcement
and has permeated popular consciousness through countless recitations in
films and television shows. Yet Miranda is only part of the story when it
comes to the procedures for ensuring justice. This edition of Law Wise explores the Miranda decision, its holding, the life and death of Ernesto Miranda, and some of the innumerable procedural protections and exceptions
that resulted.
The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts explains the Supreme
Court’s decision in the Miranda and its three related cases as follows:
The Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona, addressed four different cases involving custodial interrogations. In each of these cases, the
defendant was questioned by police officers, detectives, or a prosecuting
attorney in a room in which he was cut off from the outside world. In
none of these cases was the defendant given a full and effective warning
of his rights at the outset of the interrogation process. In all the cases, the
questioning elicited oral admissions and, in three of them, signed statements that were admitted at trial.
• Miranda v. Arizona: Miranda was arrested at his home and taken in
custody to a police station where he was identified by the complaining
witness. He was then interrogated by two police officers for two hours,
which resulted in a signed, written confession. At trial, the oral and written confessions were presented to the jury. Miranda was found guilty of
kidnapping and rape and was sentenced to 20-30 years imprisonment on
each count. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona held that Miranda’s
constitutional rights were not violated in obtaining the confession.
• Vignera v. New York: Vignera was picked up by New York police in
connection with the robbery of a dress shop that had occurred three days
prior. He was first taken to the 17th Detective Squad headquarters. He
was then taken to the 66th Detective Squad, where he orally admitted
the robbery and was placed under formal arrest. He was then taken to
the 70th Precinct for detention, where he was questioned by an assistant
district attorney in the presence of a hearing reporter who transcribed the
questions and answers. At trial, the oral confession and the transcript were
presented to the jury. Vignera was found guilty of first degree robbery
and sentenced to 30-60 years imprisonment. The conviction was affirmed
without opinion by the Appellate Division and the Court of Appeals.
www.ksbar.org/lawwise
2 LAW WISE | MARCH 2016
(Continued from Page 1)
• Westover v. United States: Westover was arrested by
local police in Kansas City as a suspect in two Kansas
City robberies and taken to a local police station. A report was also received from the FBI that Westover was
wanted on a felony charge in California. Westover was
interrogated the night of the arrest and the next morning
by local police. Then, FBI agents continued the interrogation at the station. After two-and-a-half hours of interrogation by the FBI, Westover signed separate confessions,
which had been prepared by one of the agents during the
interrogation, to each of the two robberies in California.
These statements were introduced at trial. Westover was
convicted of the California robberies and sentenced to 15
years’ imprisonment on each count. The conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
• California v. Stewart: In the course of investigating a series
of purse-snatch robberies in which one of the victims died
of injuries inflicted by her assailant, Stewart was identified as
the endorser of checks stolen in one of the robberies. Stewart
was arrested at his home. Police also arrested Stewart’s wife
and three other people who were visiting him. Stewart was
placed in a cell, and, over the next five days, was interrogated
on nine different occasions. During the ninth interrogation session, Stewart stated that he had robbed the deceased, but had
not meant to hurt her. At that time, police released the four
other people arrested with Stewart because there was no evidence to connect any of them with the crime. At trial, Stewart’s
statements were introduced. Stewart was convicted of robbery
and first-degree murder and sentenced to death. The Supreme
Court of California reversed, holding that Stewart should
have been advised of his right to remain silent and his right to
counsel. http://1.usa.gov/1nRYbF5
The issues before the high court were
whether “statements obtained from an individual who is subjected to custodial police
interrogation” are admissible against him
in a criminal trial and whether “procedures
which assure that the individual is accorded
his privilege under the Fifth Amendment to
the Constitution not to be compelled to incriminate himself” are necessary.
The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Arizona in
Miranda, reversed the judgment of the New
York Court of Appeals in Vignera, reversed
the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit in Westover, and affirmed the
judgment of the Supreme Court of California
in Stewart.
The Miranda decision was decided by a
5-4 decision that was filed June 13, 1966.
The majority opinion was written by Chief
Justice Earl Warren. A dissent was written by
Justice John Marshall Harlan, with a separate
opinion, dissenting in part, written by Justice
Tom Clark. n
Signed copy of Miranda warning by Ernesto Miranda.
www.ksbar.org/lawwise
MARCH 2016 | LAW WISE 3
Kansas Bench and Bar Leaders
Urge Reflection on Law Day
L
aw Wise asked three of Kansas’ bench and bar leaders for
their comments on Law Day and this year’s Miranda-based
theme. We begin with remarks by Chief Justice Lawton R.
Nuss:
“It is my honor as Chief Justice of the Kansas Supreme Court
to urge citizens across the state to commemorate and celebrate
Law Day, designated as May 1st by President Eisenhower in
1958, and by Congress three years later.
“The American Bar Association
throughout the years has selected a
theme as a focal point for our reflection.
This year, the ABA has chosen to recognize the 50th anniversary of one of our
nation’s best-known U.S. Supreme Court
cases, Miranda v. Arizona. The Miranda
Warning—“you have the right to remain
silent . . . “—has become ingrained in
law enforcement, and has permeated
Chief Justice
Lawton Nuss
popular consciousness through countless recitations in films, television shows,
and writings. Yet Miranda is only part of the story when it
comes to procedures for ensuring justice.
“The 2016 Law Day theme—Miranda: More than Words—
is designed to explore the procedural protections afforded to
all of us by the U.S. and Kansas Constitutions, and why the
preservation of these principles is essential to our liberty. It is
my hope that we all pause to reflect on how the rule of law,
as safeguarded by our courts, continues to protect our liberties
and rights under our U.S. and Kansas Constitutions.”
Kansas Bar Association President
Natalie Haag echoed the Chief Justice’s
sentiments in her statement for Law
Wise when she wrote,
“For the last 25 years, shows like Law
and Order have familiarized the American public with the Miranda warning:
the warning given to a suspect prior to
a custodial interrogation which reminds
the suspect of the right to remain silent
KBA President
and the right to counsel. The Miranda
Natalie Haag
vs. Arizona decision is one of the cases
which exemplifies the complexity of the United States Constitution. While there isn’t a provision in the Constitution saying
that a suspect is entitled to a Miranda warning, the Constitution
does include the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
and the Sixth Amendment which guarantees criminal defendants the right to an attorney. All three of these protections
melded together create the Miranda warning.
“It should be noted that 50 years ago the decision to exclude
evidence of the confession of Ernesto Miranda, who confessed
to raping and kidnapping a young woman, was certainly not a
popular decision. However, the U.S. Supreme Court Justices
took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
Upholding this oath may at times result in decisions that run
contrary to popular opinion. Independence from political pressure allows judges to make decisions that protect the rights
of all Americans, even when the general public and political
leaders disagree with the outcome.
“Even if you are a person who believes that the Miranda
warning no longer serves a valid purpose, I encourage you to
celebrate the fact that the Miranda v. Arizona decision represents an historical example of how an independent judiciary
allows a socially unacceptable or “bad” person to be protected
by the Constitution to the same degree that a “good” or socially acceptable person might be protected,” the KBA president
concluded.
Court of Appeals Judge G. Joseph
Pierron Jr. said the Miranda decision
gives meaning to our constitutional
rights, but probably has not resulted in
fewer confesions. He said:
“The Miranda ruling helps to give
meaning to our constitutional rights
under the Fifth (self-incrimination) and
Sixth (right to counsel) Amendments in
our Bill of Rights, which were adopted
Hon. G. Joseph
by we the people nearly 225 years ago.
Pierron Jr.
Richard A. Leo, of the University of San
Francisco School of Law, and George C. Thomas III, of Rutgers Law School, have pointed out that “Two generations of
empirical scholarship on Miranda suggest that the Miranda requirements have exerted a negligible effect on the ability of the
police to elicit confessions and on the ability of prosecutors to
win convictions. There is no good evidence that Miranda has
substantially depressed confession rates or imposed significant
costs on the American criminal justice system.”
Miranda is probably the best known U.S. Supreme Court
decision and there has been no serious movement to abolish
it through constitutional amendment, which could be done.
Interestingly, Miranda was retried without the use of his confession and was convicted. n
www.ksbar.org/lawwise
4 LAW WISE | MARCH 2016
Who was Ernesto Arturo Miranda?
T
he website “findagrave.com” (http://bit.ly/1nP56i9) describes Miranda as an American legal figure who was
born on March 9, 1941, in Mesa, Arizona. After the death
of his mother and while still in school, his troubles with the
police began. A conviction of burglary while in the 8th grade
resulted in incarceration at an Arizona reform school. Quickly
upon release, another conviction and another term in reform
school followed. A move to Los Angeles resulted in arrests for
armed robbery and minor sex offenses, and after incarceration, he was sent back to Arizona.
A tour in the Army resulted in stockade time at hard
labor for AWOL and various other charges. He was
dishonorably discharged. Arrested in Nashville driving a stolen car across state lines, he was sentenced to
the federal prison system. Back in Phoenix, Miranda
was arrested for armed robbery of a bank employee
and the kidnap/rape of an 18-year-old woman. Intensive interrogation by the Phoenix police resulted in
a written signed confession with a paragraph typed
at the top stating the confession was made with full
knowledge of his legal rights, and understanding any
statement he made may be used against him. He was
convicted solely on the strength of the confession.
On appeal, the Supreme Court set down the rule requiring a defendant be advised of his right to remain
silent and to have an attorney. Under the new rule, a
confession obtained without this warning could not
be used at trial. Released, he was re-arrested, “Mirandized”
and convicted on the strength of an actual witness without the
confession. He was sentenced to 20 to 30 years on each of the
two counts, to be served concurrently. He served eleven years
before being paroled.
After his release, he earned money by selling autographed
Miranda warning cards but continued his criminal lifestyle with
numerous arrests for driving offenses which resulted in suspension of driving privileges. Found in the possession of a gun,
he was returned to prison for another year. After his release,
Miranda spent his time in bars living in cheap hotels. While
playing cards at the La Amapola Bar in Phoenix, a violent confrontation occurred. He was mortally wounded with a knife
and was pronounced dead on arrival at age 35 at Good Samaritan Hospital. The suspect arrested was read his Miranda rights.
Upon release, he absconded to Mexico. The case was closed.
Miranda was buried in the City of Mesa Cemetery, Mesa,
Maricopa County, Arizona. n
www.ksbar.org/lawwise
MARCH 2016 | LAW WISE 5
Lesson Plan 1
M i r a n d a R i g h t s f o r J u ve n i l e s :
Ya r b o r o u g h v. A l va ra d o
Source: http://bit.ly/22ldKbp
Grades: 7–12
Directions:
1. Read the synopsis of facts for Yarborough v. Alvarado.
2. Complete the legal arguments for each side using the
graphic organizer.
3. With your class, review the possible opinions. Select the
opinion you find most persuasive and articulate reasons
why.
4. Read about the decision in Yarborough v. Alvarado and
discuss which arguments appeared most persuasive to the
Court.
Synopsis:
Michael Alvarado was convicted of second-degree murder
and robbery for his alleged role in a 1995 killing. Alvarado,
who was not the triggerman, was convicted in large part because of incriminating statements he made during a two hour
interview with a police detective. At the time of the interview,
Alvarado was a 17-year-old high school student with no prior
arrest record. The detective had contacted Alvarado’s mother,
who agreed to bring him to the police station for questioning.
When Alvarado arrived with his parents, the detective denied
the parents’ request to remain with their son during the interview. While they waited in the lobby, Alvarado was questioned
alone for two hours. He was not placed under arrest and was
allowed to leave after the questioning ended. At no time was
Alvarado advised that he had a right to remain silent, a right to
consult an attorney prior to answering, or a right to leave the
police station at any time. Alvarado alleges he was deprived of
his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights in violation of Miranda
v. Arizona.
Following his criminal conviction, Alvarado brought a petition in federal district court against Yarborough, the warden of
the prison where he was being held. The district court denied
Alvarado’s petition. However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Alvarado was “in custody” when
he was interrogated by police and, therefore, should have been
read his Miranda warnings. The Ninth Circuit insisted that federal criminal law treated children differently and this principle
should apply to Miranda custody determinations.
Graphic Organizer: Legal Issue: In determining “custody”
for purposes of Miranda, should a court apply a different standard for juveniles?
Yarborough v. Alvarado: Decision—
Majority: Justice Kennedy delivered the majority opinion in
a 5-4 decision that reversed the Ninth Circuit. The majority
found that the state criminal court that convicted Alvarado had
reached a reasonable conclusion that the minor was not in
custody for Miranda purposes when he was interviewed. The
Court cited a number of factors that indicated that Alvarado
was not in custody at the time he was questioned, including
the fact that he went to the station voluntarily, was never told
he could not leave, was not threatened by authorities, was told
the interview would be brief, and was allowed to return home
afterwards. According to the Court, Miranda can be distinguished from other cases that require special consideration of
age for juvenile offenders.
The majority also stressed the importance of a clear rule
for police to apply. Allowing different standards for juveniles
would make it more difficult for police to determine when Miranda warnings are necessary.
Concurrence: Though she joined the majority, Justice
O’Connor wrote a separate, single paragraph to emphasize her
sense that in other cases the age of the defendant could be
relevant to the custody determination. She suggested that the
failure to consider age could justify reversal in other circumstances. The fact that Alvarado was 17 years old made a difference to her.
Dissent: Justice Breyer wrote a forceful dissent in which he
criticized the majority’s characterization of the facts. Justice
Breyer framed the issue in the following way:
What reasonable person, brought to a police station by his
parents at police request, put in a small interrogation room,
questioned for a solid two hours, and confronted with claims
that there is strong evidence that he participated in a serious
crime, could have thought to himself, “Well, anytime I want to
leave I can just get up and walk out? The dissent said that the
involvement of Alvarado’s parents suggested that his participation was not voluntary and that a two-hour meeting gave the
appearance of custody. The dissent also considered the many
ways in which the court system treats juveniles differently, emphasizing that confinement determinations for juveniles should
also be treated differently. n
Arguments for Yarborough:
Arguments for Alvarado:
1.
1.
2.
2.
3.
3.
www.ksbar.org/lawwise
6 LAW WISE | MARCH 2016
Lesson Plan 2
M i ra n d a v. A rizo na
65 4 U. S . 437 (19 6 6)
Source: http://1.usa.gov/1S4MA02
Grades: 7–12
Invite a local attorney involved in criminal case litigation and have a class discussion after reading this month’s Law Wise
newsletter on the Miranda decision. Then use these questions to jumpstart a discussion of Miranda v. Arizona:
1. What aspect of the Fifth Amendment does the Miranda decision address?
2. What are Miranda rights? What rights are included in a Miranda warning?
3. Analyze each phrase of the warning and discuss what it means.
4. In what circumstances does the Miranda decision apply?
5. List the procedures the Supreme Court set out in Miranda for law enforcement and prosecutors.
6. Why does it matter if people, who are in police custody, are advised of their rights?
7. What happens if Miranda warnings are not given to someone who later faces a criminal trial?
8. Discuss the lessons of Miranda as they might apply to protesters in the news.
9. Do juveniles have Miranda rights?
10. What are the factors that determine if a juvenile gets a Miranda warning?
www.ksbar.org/lawwise
MARCH 2016 | LAW WISE 7
Te r r i f i c Te c h n o l o g y
For a comprehensive look at the Miranda decision and its
players, C-Span has chronicled it along with 11 other U.S. Supreme Court landmark cases. Rich videos and interesting reading about those directly involved in the appeal may be found
at: http://bit.ly/1UjftZH
The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Miranda v. Arizona is
said to be one of the most controversial of any handed down
in criminal law. The full text of the decision may be found here
at: http://bit.ly/1RoWYfW
for
Te a c h e r s
The Court’s decision in Miranda was met with criticism when
it was handed down in 1966, and it continues to be controversial today. A table containing commentary on the decision
and its effect on law enforcement may be used as an excellent
discussion group tool in which students are asked to determine whether various quotations on the decision are supporting (pro) or criticizing (con.) See: http://bit.ly/1MpA7Qg
Additional resources and information on KBA Law Day
http://www.ksbar.org/LawDay
March Buzz
@ The Law-Related Collection, Emporia State University, Teachers College Resource Center
T
he evening news shouts out about the latest debates, and
there are so many candidates that it may be confusing for
the learners in our schools. So what can we do? We can teach
about voting and the election process. “The Election Process
in America”, a 50 minute DVD from the Just the Facts Learning Series, is packed with information about voting rights. It
considers the vocabulary, and travels learners through some
recent campaigns to explain. We also have books about several presidents, and other resources that will tempt learners
to find out more about: political parties, the electoral college,
lobbyists, and more.
If any of these topics fit your interests or needs, you may
search online at emporiastate.worldcat.org and choose “Resource Center” from the drop box to see the full array of materials and resources available here at the Center. If you plan
to be in our area, we are located on the second floor of Visser
Hall, on the campus of Emporia State University, and we would
be proud to give you the guided tour. You may also call 620341-5292 to check out resources during our hours, 9-6, Monday through Thursday, and 9-5 on Friday. We are able to mail
out and receive items with no charge to the patron, thanks to
the generosity of the Kansas Bar Association. Please help us to
continue our “Buzz” here at the Law Related Education Collection at Emporia State University! n
Janice Romeise
(620) 341-5292
emporiastate.worldcat.org
[email protected]
Corky the Hornet
2016 Mock Trial Tournament Update
On February 27, six teams from the Regional Mock Trial Competitions advanced to State Competition on March 25-26.
Congratulations!
Wichita Regional
1. Sunrise Christian Academy (First Place)
2. The Independent School (Second Place)
3. Northeast Magnet High School (Third Place)
KC Regional
1. Shawnee Mission East High School (First Place)
2. Blue Valley Northwest High School (Second Place)
3. Olathe North High School (Third Place)
Sunrise participants (L to R): Sarah Myose, Cynthia Matson, Nathan
Keck, Cameryn Rasmussen, Bethany Reeder (front); Emily Kelley (back);
Gretchen Keck; Michael Goddard
SME participants (L to R): Caleb Hanlon, Iman Jaroudi, Nate Paris, Spencer
Mitchell, Jack Eddy, (Not Pictured Reami Boone)
www.ksbar.org/lawwise
8 LAW WISE | MARCH 2016
Can You Win
the White House?
Running for the presidency isn’t easy, and it’s challenging to teach. Win the White House teaches students
in grades 4-12 about the challenges of running for office by empowering them to create and manage their own
presidential campaigns. Visit http://www.icivics.org
Dear Readers,
Law Wise is provided as a public service and is a publication funded by the KBA Law Related Education Committee
through a grant from the Kansas Bar Foundation.
We are interested in your thoughts, ideas, and suggestions about current and future issues. In an effort to provide a format
for subscribers to share information, we have created a new way to register and to receive Law Wise. If you do not currently
receive Law Wise via your email inbox, but would like to, we need you to let us know. Here are some simple instructions
to do that.
How to Subscribe
Nonmembers:
We now request you have a FREE Educator account.
1. During the sign up process (www.ksbar.org/join), choose Educator.
2. Create a username, input your first and last name, and select “Law Wise” from the Education drop down menu.
Click Continue.
3. Create a password and complete the form.
4. You are now subscribed to Law Wise.
KBA Members:
1. Please sign in.
2. Go to http://www.ksbar.org/LawWise.
3. Next, you click the Join Group icon near the top
of the Law Wise webpage.
FAQs
We have a list of FAQs available
at http://www.ksbar.org/LWFAQ.
The Kansas Bar Foundation, with Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Accounts (IOLTA) funding, provides support for this publication. Law Wise
provides general information about law-related matters of interest to teachers, students, and the public in Kansas, but does not provide any
legal advice, so readers should consult their own lawyers for legal advice. For further information about any projects or articles, contact
Ron Keefover at [email protected]; or Anne Woods, public services director, (785) 234-5696. Law Wise is published by the Kansas
Bar Association, 1200 SW Harrison St., Topeka, KS 66612-1806, during the school year.
www.ksbar.org/lawwise