Program Information

In 1966 John Flynn, a public defender from Arizona, argued before the U.S. Supreme Court that his client was not given a clear description of his legal rights. The case was an important milestone in American justice.

A Moment in Time is a brief, exciting and compelling journey into the past. Created to excite and enlighten the public about the past, its relevance to the present and its impact on the future, A Moment In Time is a captivating historical narrative that is currently broadcast worldwide.

Transcript

Lead: In 1966 John Flynn, a public defender from Arizona, argued before the U.S. Supreme Court that his client was not given a clear description of his legal rights. The case was an important milestone in American justice.

Intro: A Moment in Time with Dan Roberts.

Content: Ernesto Miranda was a confessed rapist and kidnapper incarcerated in the state prison in Florence, Arizona. He had signed a confession acknowledging his legal rights, but had not specifically been told he had the right to counsel. Working for the American Civil Liberties Union, John Flynn, in the landmark case Miranda v. Arizona, appealed Miranda's conviction to the Supreme Court. Writing for the court majority, Chief Justice Earl Warren insisted that prosecutors must provide certain safeguards to defendants before statements taken in custody can be used as evidence in a trial. From that point, those placed under arrest in real life or in countless television and movie presentations had to be read their rights, often from a so-called Miranda Card: to remain silent, that anything they say may be used as evidence, and that they have the right to an attorney.

As essayist Phil Patton reminds us, Miranda v. Arizona was one of the most hotly-debated decisions of the Warren court era. It resulted from growing concern on the part of judges and legislators about abusive police interrogations and alleged mounting abridgment of defendant's Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. Critics charged that the ruling weakened law enforcement, but some defenders believed Miranda actually made law enforcement's job easier, standardizing arrest procedures and making confessions stick.

The court has revisited “Miranda” almost fifty times, and although the ruling has been modified and its scope limited over the years, in 2000 and 2004 the Supreme Court reaffirmed the Miranda ruling and said the warning requirements were constitutional.

Ernesto Miranda was retried, convicted and after a prison term was released. He died ten years after the decision that bears his name, stabbed to death in bar fight. His attackers were arrested and convicted after having their rights read to them from a Miranda card.

At the University of Richmond, this is Dan Roberts.

Virginia Standards