Miranda: The Story of America's Right to Remain Silent

Abstract

Miranda: The Story of America's Right to Remain Silent Gary L. Stuart. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 2004. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) became one of best-known cases history of American criminal justice. Ernesto Miranda had confessed to police that he was guilty of multiple robberies and a rape. Simply stated, Miranda decision by Supreme Court allows a suspect to remain silent after an explicit statement of that right by police, along with warning that anything said can become part of subsequent proceedings. Combined with earlier Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), which established indigent person's right to counsel, and Escobedo v. Illinois (1964), establishing right to counsel during interrogation, Miranda seemed revolutionary. The decision was a comprehensive effort to state rights of criminal suspects as required by US Constitution. The Fifth Amendment Bill of Rights states that no person be compelled any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. The Sixth Amendment further specifies that in all criminal prosecutions, accused shall enjoy right to a speedy and public trial. The Fourteenth Amendment of Constitution required states to accord federal rights to its citizens. How are these conceptions of fair procedure and national citizen rights translated to street, to suspect's home, to jailhouse interrogation room? Gary L. Stuart contributes notably to understanding maze of issues and emotions embedded Miranda. A civil litigator, Stuart served as a colleague same Arizona firm with John P. Frank and John J. Flynn, criminal defense attorneys who laid out legal strategy for appealing Ernesto Miranda's convictions for murder and rape. In addition, Stuart has a narrative bent, evident his earlier crime novel The Gallup 14 (2000). As an Arizona resident, he has been able to interview many criminal justice principals who were part of Ernesto Miranda's prosecution or defense. In addition to offering fine thumbnail sketches of cases, individuals, and decisions, Stuart is especially good at explaining how American judicial system evolves. As he explains, the law protecting our privilege against self incrimination did not spring forth fully formed, like Athena from forehead of Zeus, for constitutional rights, like genetic codes, take time to evolve (40). In addition to providing narratives for cases that impinge on Miranda and giving a blowby-blow account of related pleadings before Supreme Court, Stuart summarizes matrix of police abuses that weighed so heavily with Warren court. …