www.ksbar.org/lawwise

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

LAW WISE

March 25-26 State High School Mock Trial Competition

May 1 Law Day

Calendar of events

Greetings from the Kansas Bar Association (KBA). Welcome to this edition of Law Wise and the fifth edition of the 2015-2016 school year.

Editor: Ron KeefoverCoordinators: Hon. G. Joseph Pierron Jr. • Anne Woods & Ryan Purcell, KBA staff

MARCH 2016 • ISSUE 5PUBLISHED BY

“Miranda: More than Words” Named 2016 Law Day theme

In 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 ex-plores the Miranda decision, its holding, the life and death of Ernesto Mi-randa, 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 dif-ferent 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 state-ments 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 writ-ten 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

• 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 re-port 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 interroga-tion at the station. After two-and-a-half hours of interro-gation 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 af-firmed 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 ses-sion, 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 evi-dence 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 indi-vidual 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 in-criminate himself” are necessary.

The Supreme Court reversed the judg-ment 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 filed by a 5-4 decision that was filed June 13, 1966. The majority opinion was written by Chief Jus-tice Earl Warren. A dissent was written by Justice John Marshall Harlan, with a separate opinion, dissenting in part, written by Justice Tom Clark. n

(Continued from Page 1)

Signed copy of Miranda warning by Ernesto Miranda.

www.ksbar.org/lawwise

MARCH 2016 | LAW WISE 3

Law 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 recog-nize 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 popular consciousness through count-less 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 Ameri-can 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 and the right to counsel. The Miranda vs. Arizona decision is one of the cases

which exemplifies the complexity of the United States Consti-tution. 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-incrimina-tion, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

and the Sixth Amendment which guarantees criminal defen-dants 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 pres-sure 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 repre-sents 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 social-ly 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 by we the people nearly 225 years ago. Richard A. Leo, of the University of San

Francisco School of Law, and George C. Thomas III, of Rut-gers Law School, have pointed out that “Two generations of empirical scholarship on Miranda suggest that the Miranda re-quirements 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 confes-sion and was convicted. n

Chief Justice Lawton Nuss

KBA President Natalie Haag

Hon. G. Joseph Pierron Jr.

Kansas Bench and Bar Leaders Urge Reflection on Law Day

www.ksbar.org/lawwise

4 LAW WISE | MARCH 2016

Who was Ernesto Arturo Miranda?

The website “findagrave.com” (http://bit.ly/1nP56i9) de-scribes 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 incar-ceration, 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 driv-ing 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. Inten-sive 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 re-quiring 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 suspen-sion 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 con-frontation occurred. He was mortally wounded with a knife

and was pronounced dead on arrival at age 35 at Good Samar-itan 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

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 the 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 be-cause 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 inter-view. 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 peti-tion 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 Ap-peals 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 fed-eral 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 stan-dard 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 distin-guished 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 Mi-randa 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 circum-stances. The fact that Alvarado was 17 years old made a dif-ference 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 participa-tion 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, em-phasizing that confinement determinations for juveniles should also be treated differently. n

L e s s o n P l a n 1

M i ra n d a R ig h t s fo r Ju ve n i l e s : Ya rb orough v. A lva ra d o

Source: http://bit.ly/22ldKbp Grades: 7–12

Arguments for Yarborough:

1.

2.

3.

Arguments for Alvarado:

1.

2.

3.

www.ksbar.org/lawwise

6 LAW WISE | MARCH 2016

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?

L e s s o n P l a n 2

Mira n da v. A r izona 654 U. S . 437 (1966)

Source: http://1.usa.gov/1S4MA02 Grades: 7–12

www.ksbar.org/lawwise

MARCH 2016 | LAW WISE 7

The 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 Learn-ing 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 sev-eral 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 “Re-source Center” from the drop box to see the full array of ma-terials 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 620-341-5292 to check out resources during our hours, 9-6, Mon-day 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 Collec-tion at Emporia State University! n

On February 27, six teams from the Regional Mock Trial Competitions advanced to State Competition on March 25-26. Congratulations!

Wichita Regional1. Sunrise Christian Academy (First Place)2. The Independent School (Second Place)3. Northeast Magnet High School (Third Place)

KC Regional1. Shawnee Mission East High School (First Place)2. Blue Valley Northwest High School (Second Place)3. Olathe North High School (Third Place)

March Buzz@ the law-related ColleCtion, emporia state University, teaChers College resoUrCe Center

2016 Mock Trial Tournament Update

Janice Romeise (620) 341-5292 emporiastate.worldcat.org jromeise@emporia.eduv

Corky the Hornet

terrifiC teChnology for te aCher s

For a comprehensive look at the Miranda decision and its players, C-Span has chronicled it along with 11 other U.S. Su-preme Court landmark cases. Rich videos and interesting read-ing 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 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

The Court’s decision in Miranda was met with criticism when it was handed down in 1966, and it continues to be contro-versial 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 deter-mine whether various quotations on the decision are support-ing (pro) or criticizing (con.) See: http://bit.ly/1MpA7Qg

Additional resources and information on KBA Law Day http://www.ksbar.org/LawDay

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

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 SubscribeNonmembers: 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.

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 ronkeefover@gmail.com; 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.

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

FAQsWe have a list of FAQs available at http://www.ksbar.org/LWFAQ.

Can You Win the White house?