Miranda Rule: Sign of an Enlightened System

In 1985 the Criminal Courts Bar Assn. presented to Los Angeles County Assistant District Atty. Curtis Livesay one of its most prestigious awards for his career as an honest and respected prosecutor. His honesty has again been demonstrated in The Times article (April 18) on the history of the Miranda decision, which, 20 years ago, mandated that police advise suspects of their right to remain silent, that anything they said could and would be used against them, and that they had a right to an attorney (free in some cases) to advise them prior to any questioning.

The article pointed out that a violation of the so-called “Miranda rights”--i.e., failure to give the required admonition--”is likeliest to occur in the most serious cases, when police officers are pressing hard to solve murders and other violent crimes.”

The article then quotes Livesay as saying: “Police investigate these cases much more intensely. They may really lean on people they apprehend when they’re trying to solve a tough, high-profile case.”

Truer words were never spoken! And it is precisely because of the understandable tendency of police and prosecutors to “lean on” suspects in such cases that the relatively modest demands have been imposed on them to advise the suspect of his rights to silence and to counsel before the “leaning” process begins.

Although the U.S. Supreme Court justices may be accused of publishing their opinions from an ivy-covered tower, in their decades of combined experience on the bench they have been well-briefed in hundreds of cases that have documented the many ways that police “lean on” suspects. They have also seen how such conduct--although frequently producing true confessions--can produce and has produced false or questionable “confessions.” Such confessions are particularly dangerous in those very “high-profile” cases referred to by Livesay because the penalty frequently sought in such cases is death.

All of us who work in the field of criminal law know that a certain percentage of people--even hardened criminals--will talk to their interrogators in spite of the most elaborate of warnings. A certain percentage wouldn’t talk if hot pokers were put to their feet. There are, however, a number of unsophisticated and frequently confused suspects who, though actually innocent of any wrongdoing, are understandably intimidated by their arrest and the wait in jail that generally precedes formal interrogation.

In those “tough, high-profile cases” referred to by Livesay, these people often make inconsistent and sometimes outright false statements as they defensively try to escape the questioners’ frightening accusations and the additional charges of lying in the face of those accusations. The process is particularly harrowing when they are questioned about events that occurred weeks or months previously when memories are dulled not only by time but also by the specter of prison or the gas chamber discreetly suggested by their inquisitors.

Although full confessions rarely come from such encounters, the statements return to impeach (and almost always conflict) a defendant. Though he may be able to testify truthfully, given time and less coercive circumstances, the prior inconsistent statements thrown up at him by the prosecutor are damning evidence against him.

As the article suggests, there are certainly ways of getting around or neutralizing the Miranda mandate, just as there are ways of ignoring the proscription against the use of force in questioning suspects. It is, nevertheless, the sign of an enlightened judicial system that our police officers are told, on pain of exclusion of any admission or confession, to utter the 40 to 50 words needed to advise a suspect of just two important constitutional rights before the “leaning on” process begins.

GEORGE V. DENNY III

Immediate Past President

Criminal Courts Bar Assn.

Los Angeles