Goodnight, Miranda

The current controversy about providing Miranda warnings to “terrorist” suspects tickles me. I have been dealing with it for more than forty years. It is one of the most misunderstood rules and has been controversial since it was issued, in 1966.

But the outcry about the possibility of terror suspects having and demanding their rights under the Constitution before providing intelligence that could lead to arrests of other plotters and finding evidence of future crimes is rampant. The amount of misinformation and hysteria is amazing.

This is Yahoo! search screen is a small sample:

"782,136 results for “miranda warning terrorist…:

"CNSNews.com - Holder: Miranda Warnings for Terrorists Won't ... Holder: Miranda Warnings for Terrorists Won't Harm Interrogations ... If the suspected terrorist IS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, miranda and right to an attorney are ..."

"CNSNews.com - Reading Miranda Rights to Terrorists Is 'Crazy' and 'Stupid,' Say GOP Congressmen ... Miranda warnings were mandated by a U.S. Supreme Court decision that said domestic law ... "

"Will terrorists be given Miranda warnings? Saturday, February ... matter of terrorists and Miranda warnings (and by extension the trying of these sub ..." lodinews.com

"Miranda Rights for Terrorists. BY Stephen F. Hayes. June 10, 2009 2:05 PM ... many Americans are familiar with the Miranda warning - so named because of the ..." weeklystandard.com

"Jo's Cafe " Miranda for Terrorists? Miranda for Terrorists? Tuesday, 27 January 2009, 5:30. As Dear Leader Obama closes Gitmo ... expressed about rights for these terrorists under the Miranda Warning. ..." joscafe.com

"Conservative View Point, Political Blog, Conservative ... Terrorist Miranda Warnings. Posted by Bill Patchett on Saturday, November 14, 2009 12:44: ... If we read these terrorist Miranda warnings we would have obtained ..." aconservativeviewpoint.blogtownhall.com

"Obama and Miranda Warnings - The Hill's Pundits Blog ... Obama and Miranda Warnings. By Ron Christie - 06/11/09 09:56 AM ET ... him that terrorist suspects were being read Miranda warnings prior to interrogation. ..." thehill.com/blogs

"DOJ Confirms FBI is Reading Miranda Rights to Detainees in ... the FBI is reading Miranda rights to terrorist suspects in Afghanistan: "There has been ... Miranda warnings. In September 2008, when McCain-Palin pulled ahead of Obama..." dailyradar.com."

Without hysteria or hyperbole, these are the facts as I know them from forty years of criminal practice:

The Miranda holding was intended to enforce the Fifth Amendment’s command that no person shall be compelled to give evidence against himself.

Courts long ago decided that any admission or confession of guilt by a suspect must be shown to be voluntary rather than coerced. The landmark case for this rule is Bram v. U.S., decided as far back as 1897.

In the first half of the 20th century, American courts grappled with the problem of coerced confessions. Common police tactics throughout the country ranged from the less than subtle “rubber hose” to “the third degree” and all the now familiar psychological techniques that border on torture.

Courts responded with occasional but ineffectual rulings that sought to deter such police misconduct until in 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court finally issued its Miranda decision, which required police to warn suspects in custody that (1) they have a right to remain silent, (2) that anything they say can be used against them, (3) that they have a right to have an attorney present before questioning, (4) that if they asserted the right to remain silent, no further questioning could be done. Failure to comply with the rule meant that any statement obtained in violation would be inadmissable in the suspect’s trial (an expansion of the exclusionary rule that courts had imposed for violations of the 4th Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches).

The holding met hysterical opposition as soon as it was issued. Police advocates cried that it would tie their hands, prevent them from “solving” cases, free the guilty. Conservative legal scholars criticized the Warren court’s policy of expanding the exclusionary rule — punishing the society for the “constable’s blunders.”

At the time, more competent and less paranoid law enforcement authorities pointed out that the ruling would be beneficial to police work, demanding that detectives continue to investigate, finding solid evidence rather than lazily relying on unreliable coerced confessions to make their cases.

However, the golden age of the Warren court passed quickly. New “conservative” appointees over the next forty years narrowed the ruling in many ways. Among these changes: narrowing the definition of “custody” and “interrogation”; broadening the permissive form of the advisement. The Supreme Court held that detectives can receive statements even if Miranda is not followed. The prosecutor can’t use the statement in its case, but if the defendant testifies contrary to his statement, it can then be used to impeach him.

Equally important, the Supreme Court has refused to demand a high degree of proof in this area, turning back calls for audio or video taping of the interrogation process to insure its fairness.

Of course, the major defect in the law has always been apparent to anyone within the system. Before Miranda, police were able to coerce confessions and then lie about it in court. After Miranda, they were still able to lie about that and also lie about whether they advised the suspect of rights.

Two important limitations to the Miranda rule are worth mentioning. First, the Supreme Court carved out what it calls “the public safety exception”. In the Quarles case in 1984, the Court held that police could continue to question a suspect without advisement if there was an imminent threat to the public. There, a gun was loose; in other cases it has been explosives, dangerous contraband. The Court did the same in the 4th Amendment (search and seizure) context, creating an warrant exception for “exigent circumstances”.

Beyond all the law, which clearly present few obstacles to questioning of terrorist suspects, is the aspect of human nature that we in the system know all too well. The fact is that criminal suspects in general and people who commit crimes for political motives in particular are more than willing to talk — without counsel or against advice of counsel.

The (Attorney - Client) Confidence Game

I haven't posted for a while. Been suffering from shingles. No, I didn't fall off the roof. In between scratching & moaning, I've been reading. Last Sunday, a New York Times article caught me deep into the National Section, at page 22, a typical placement for this kind of trivial headline: "Confession Revealed, Freeing Prisoner of 26 Years."

The situation is very weird. Seems that another guy confessed to the crime to his lawyers, but they didn't reveal the fact in public until their client died. Now they've come forward and disclosed the confession. So the wrong guy was convicted and kept serving time years after someone else confessed to the crime.

So, is this justice? The lawyers for the confessing client had a dilemma. What he told them was in confidence, covered by the attorney-client privilege. A lawyer cannot - must not - under pain of disbarment - disclose such confidential information to anyone without the client's permission. Understanding their obligation as well as the problem this information would lead to, the lawyers wisely prepared affidavits containing the detailed information their client confessed to UNDER SEAL - not to be opened until their client died.

There are cases which say that the confidential communication privilege doesn't survive the death of the client. But there are other cases that say otherwise.

Vince Foster, an official in the Clinton administration, was under investigation as part of the so-called Travelgate scandal. He had hired and consulted with an attorney and was under pressure by Ken Starr, the (so-called) Independent Counsel. Foster committed suicide. Starr then sought to interview Foster's lawyer to find out if Foster or others (read Bill & Hillary) had committed crimes or if Foster's death was homicide.

The Supreme Court eventually upheld the attorney-client privilege. The idea of the privilege, which has existed in the common law for centuries, is to encourage a free flow of truthful information between lawyer and client. If the client thinks that what he tells his lawyer will be disclosed, he will ( shudder) lie to or withhold facts from his lawyer. The Supremes observed that many clients would not want their confidences revealed even after death and that was an interest worth protecting, even if it causes "injustice" or incovenience to the cause of justice.

The privilege is not without exceptions. It is now established that it doesn't cover future violent crimes. If the client tells his lawyer he intends to commit violent crimes, the lawyer has a duty to disclose that. I've always resented this. It kind of discriminates against us criminal lawyers. I mean, clients planning non-ciminal transactions can consult their lawyers. I'm waiting for the client who calls me in whispers: "Hey, Mort, I'm in a bank and I want to rob it. What should I do?"

In reality, contrary to public opinion, most clients do not confess to their lawyers. They confess to the cops, to their homies, to everyone in the jail - but they deny guilt to their lawyers. This is mostly because they fear their lawyers won't fight for them unless they believe in their innocence, not because they fear the lawyer will tell on them.

I have friends who never ask their clients if they're guilty because they don't want to be hampered in their defense. I can't deal with that fantasy. I always grill my clients until they confess to me or at least until I'm pretty well convinced of their guilt. My reason is partly selfish: it's bothersome to defend innocent people - the pressure of losing the case when the client is innocent is too intense. Its comforting to defend guilty people.

The Big Gulp

Probably like other lawyers, I cannot watch any of the T.V. lawyer programs. "L.A. Law" irked me when I was a public defender because I couldn’t afford their suits or even their haircuts, much less the snazzy offices they worked & played around in.

Being in criminal law, the crime / law shows were worse torture. Even supposedly gritty ones like "N.Y.P.D. Blue" and "Homicide" rankled.

My loved ones banned me from movies on the subject after "The Verdict," when I gagged on my Big Gulp in so many scenes that I needed a Heimlich to survive.

So why did I rent "Fracture"? Anthony Hopkins & Ryan Gosling, two of my favorites outsmarting each other, that was the hook.

And I wasn’t disappointed by their scenes together — the brilliant, sly defendant vs. the young, slick D.A. Hopkins and Gosling were fine.

But the plot’s turns that depend on The Law had me laughing and gagging again. The suspense and the payoffs rely on two bits of legalisms that are completely bogus.

The judge throws out a signed confession because one of the officers in the room had been having a secret love affair with the victim, the wife of the guy who confesses that he shot her. I could swallow the melodramatic stretch of this unlikely event. That's not what bothered me. But the law is wrong. No judge would find such a confession to be coerced on that evidence. Nope, uh-uh. Never happen in any court in the U.S.

The second supposedly surprising legal twist is that after the brilliant defendant is acquitted of attempted murder of his now comatose wife, he signs papers that get her plugs pulled and she dies. He thinks double jeopardy will prevent his re-trial. Uh-uh. Wrong again.

This was the same plot blunder made by an Ashley Judd film a few years ago callled "Double Jeopardy". Ashley was convicted of killing her husband when he vanished from their boat and while in prison, she discovers that he is still alive. She is released and goes to find him, confronts him and kills him, getting away with it because as we all know, "you can’t be punished twice for the same crime." Nope. Sorry. Not true. Never has been true. The law would simply apologize for its first mistake and lock you up again.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I get it that shortcuts and contrived plot devices are sometimes necessary to make a story work. I don’t mind it if the inaccuracies are incidental to the main point. But when it is the Big Twisteroo or when the movie is intended as a commentary on "The Legal System," artistic licenses should be revoked.