Return to Transcripts main page

Live From...

Miranda Warning Turns 40

Aired December 09, 2003 - 14:42   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: This year marks the 40th anniversary of the arrest that changed the course of law enforcement in America. Ernesto Miranda was a robbery suspect who's confession to a separate kidnapping and rape led to conviction and three years later to a landmark reversal by the highest court in the land.
Post-Miranda police departments had to pack palm-sized cards that spell out a suspect's constitutional rights against self- incrimination. Anybody who watched a cop show can quote them. "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you," and so on.

But that's not the end of the story. The high court has gone back to clarify Miranda, almost 50 times, most recently just this morning. Two brand-new cases question evidence and statements that police obtained before or without Miranda protections.

Joining with their insights and very different perspectives are prominent defense attorney Ron Kuby and former LAPD police chief, Bernard Parks. Gentlemen, good to see you both.

BERNARD PARKS, FRM. L.A. POLICE CHIEF: Hi, Kyra.

PHILLIPS: Bernard, let's start with you. You are former LAPD chief. In 1996, I was reading that the LAPD had a training video that was made public during a '96 lawsuit explaining the value of outside Miranda interviews.

As someone who has dealt with some of the most violent criminals, someone who worked the streets, how is working outside of Miranda helpful to you as a police officer, as someone that has to fight crime and put criminals behind bars?

PARKS: Well, Kyra, I think throughout my career, there's been a clear identification that within Miranda, those statements and evidence that you use in court. But when you went outside of Miranda, that's those were statements that you may have used to clear crimes, identify additional suspects, locate guns, locate bodies, and that clearly, it was not information that was going to be used as it related to the conviction of the suspect unless that suspect eventually went to trial and testified.

And so these are things that the police have used as tools for decades and decades. This recent phenomenon about you should stop talking on any subject once Miranda has been invoked is a new challenge as it related to police activities and techniques. PHILLIPS: And we'll talk about that challenge in a minute.

Ron, I want to get you to respond. When you listen to the former chief put it that way, it seems to make sense.

RON KUBY, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, I hate to agree with chief parks. I'm going to lose my reputation here.

(LAUGHTER)

KUBY: But the truth is, Miranda has been an incredible success story for both the police as well as for the Constitution. For the police, what it offers is a simple, easy, bright-line rule. This is what you have to do. This is the way you have to do it. It doesn't take a lot of training.

For those of us concerned about constitutional rights, it makes sure that a suspect knows his or her rights, and then if he or she chooses to confess or to make statements, that's perfectly fine. And those statements then come into court and can be used to convict them.

It's been a tremendous success story, and it's the reason why, despite the fact the Supreme Court has changed dramatically in the past 37 years, become much more conservative, court after court after court has said, We're going to retain Miranda because it works.

PHILLIPS: So why are so many defense attorneys coming forward and saying, this is unfair? This undermines what Miranda is supposed to represent? And that suspects are getting violated?

KUBY: Well, look. You always have arguments around the edges. The two cases of the supreme court heard today were cases in point. In the Colorado case, the cops came in, and a guy who had a prior felony conviction said, I don't want to hear about my rights. Go ahead. The gun's in the bedroom.

Well, OK. What's going to happen there? Probably the court is going to say, the police don't have to force somebody to sit down and listen to their rights. If they give up their rights, if they give up their warnings, then it, indeed, falls on them.

The second case, though, was more disturbing, a Missouri case following a practice that I know Chief Parks doesn't use, where what the police did, they did a dry run with the suspect without Mirandizing the suspect, without giving her her rights.

And then after they elicit a confession, then they went back and did it the right way. I think the court's going to say that's inadmissible as evidence. And I know Chief Parks doesn't do that -- didn't do that with the LAPD.

PHILLIPS: He's giving you a big hand salute there, Chief. ` PARKS: Well, you know, I think that's very accurate. I think, again, there's always going to be disputes around the edges, but the main theme of Miranda has professionalized police work since the mid- '60s when it came in place. And those who were students of law enforcement understand the value of it and play by the rules.

But there always are going to be circumstances, unique circumstances that have never happened before, and that you have to realize often are reacting to spontaneous movements and statements by suspects.

I think the court has generally been supportive of those kind of spontaneous reactions. Where they've not been supportive is when it appears to be a planned move by the police to circumvent what has been pretty well established as a well thought out principle for criminal justice.

PHILLIPS: Well, Bernard, is it true that usually the first interrogation goes better than the second, so you have the suspect in the heat of the moment and might be all that you need, so why not take it while you have it and not waste any time?

PARKS: You know, every case is different. In years past, the basic philosophy was initially go in and just talk to the suspect and just somewhat get a relationship.

You're not going to find many suspects that are going to be ready to talk just in walking in and saying did you do it? You're going to have to find a relationship, some reason for them wanting to participate. And you have to find a way to where you can have a discussion with them.

And I think clearly, in developing that, you cannot violate the law, and I think it's clear, also, that you can't enforce the law while enforcing -- you cannot enforce the law while violating the law. It's a principle that I think every legitimate law enforcement agency supports.

PHILLIPS: So, Ron, exception to the Miranda may be necessary to prevent perjury?

KUBY: Well, that's been a well-crafted exception. I mean, Miranda is considered a shield against police misconduct. But it's never been allowed to be used as a sword by the defendant to get up on the witness stand and give a story much different than the one he or she gave to the police.

And if a defendant does that, in fact, there has been a well- crafted and well-recognized exception that allows you to impeach that person's credibility by confronting them with their prior statement, even if it had been obtained without Miranda.

And I got to say, if all cops were like Chief Parks, there would be a lot fewer defense lawyers in business.

PHILLIPS: You know, I thought these two were going to go at each other, and look at this.

KUBY: Just goes to show.

(LAUGHTER) PHILLIPS: It's a love connection. It's not a bad thing, Chief, to have Ron Kuby on your side, believe me.

Gentlemen, Bernard Parks, Ron Kuby, thank you.

PARKS: Thank you very much.

PHILLIPS: It was a pleasure. We'll follow what the high court does and bring you two back. Thank you.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com







Aired December 9, 2003 - 14:42   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: This year marks the 40th anniversary of the arrest that changed the course of law enforcement in America. Ernesto Miranda was a robbery suspect who's confession to a separate kidnapping and rape led to conviction and three years later to a landmark reversal by the highest court in the land.
Post-Miranda police departments had to pack palm-sized cards that spell out a suspect's constitutional rights against self- incrimination. Anybody who watched a cop show can quote them. "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you," and so on.

But that's not the end of the story. The high court has gone back to clarify Miranda, almost 50 times, most recently just this morning. Two brand-new cases question evidence and statements that police obtained before or without Miranda protections.

Joining with their insights and very different perspectives are prominent defense attorney Ron Kuby and former LAPD police chief, Bernard Parks. Gentlemen, good to see you both.

BERNARD PARKS, FRM. L.A. POLICE CHIEF: Hi, Kyra.

PHILLIPS: Bernard, let's start with you. You are former LAPD chief. In 1996, I was reading that the LAPD had a training video that was made public during a '96 lawsuit explaining the value of outside Miranda interviews.

As someone who has dealt with some of the most violent criminals, someone who worked the streets, how is working outside of Miranda helpful to you as a police officer, as someone that has to fight crime and put criminals behind bars?

PARKS: Well, Kyra, I think throughout my career, there's been a clear identification that within Miranda, those statements and evidence that you use in court. But when you went outside of Miranda, that's those were statements that you may have used to clear crimes, identify additional suspects, locate guns, locate bodies, and that clearly, it was not information that was going to be used as it related to the conviction of the suspect unless that suspect eventually went to trial and testified.

And so these are things that the police have used as tools for decades and decades. This recent phenomenon about you should stop talking on any subject once Miranda has been invoked is a new challenge as it related to police activities and techniques. PHILLIPS: And we'll talk about that challenge in a minute.

Ron, I want to get you to respond. When you listen to the former chief put it that way, it seems to make sense.

RON KUBY, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, I hate to agree with chief parks. I'm going to lose my reputation here.

(LAUGHTER)

KUBY: But the truth is, Miranda has been an incredible success story for both the police as well as for the Constitution. For the police, what it offers is a simple, easy, bright-line rule. This is what you have to do. This is the way you have to do it. It doesn't take a lot of training.

For those of us concerned about constitutional rights, it makes sure that a suspect knows his or her rights, and then if he or she chooses to confess or to make statements, that's perfectly fine. And those statements then come into court and can be used to convict them.

It's been a tremendous success story, and it's the reason why, despite the fact the Supreme Court has changed dramatically in the past 37 years, become much more conservative, court after court after court has said, We're going to retain Miranda because it works.

PHILLIPS: So why are so many defense attorneys coming forward and saying, this is unfair? This undermines what Miranda is supposed to represent? And that suspects are getting violated?

KUBY: Well, look. You always have arguments around the edges. The two cases of the supreme court heard today were cases in point. In the Colorado case, the cops came in, and a guy who had a prior felony conviction said, I don't want to hear about my rights. Go ahead. The gun's in the bedroom.

Well, OK. What's going to happen there? Probably the court is going to say, the police don't have to force somebody to sit down and listen to their rights. If they give up their rights, if they give up their warnings, then it, indeed, falls on them.

The second case, though, was more disturbing, a Missouri case following a practice that I know Chief Parks doesn't use, where what the police did, they did a dry run with the suspect without Mirandizing the suspect, without giving her her rights.

And then after they elicit a confession, then they went back and did it the right way. I think the court's going to say that's inadmissible as evidence. And I know Chief Parks doesn't do that -- didn't do that with the LAPD.

PHILLIPS: He's giving you a big hand salute there, Chief. ` PARKS: Well, you know, I think that's very accurate. I think, again, there's always going to be disputes around the edges, but the main theme of Miranda has professionalized police work since the mid- '60s when it came in place. And those who were students of law enforcement understand the value of it and play by the rules.

But there always are going to be circumstances, unique circumstances that have never happened before, and that you have to realize often are reacting to spontaneous movements and statements by suspects.

I think the court has generally been supportive of those kind of spontaneous reactions. Where they've not been supportive is when it appears to be a planned move by the police to circumvent what has been pretty well established as a well thought out principle for criminal justice.

PHILLIPS: Well, Bernard, is it true that usually the first interrogation goes better than the second, so you have the suspect in the heat of the moment and might be all that you need, so why not take it while you have it and not waste any time?

PARKS: You know, every case is different. In years past, the basic philosophy was initially go in and just talk to the suspect and just somewhat get a relationship.

You're not going to find many suspects that are going to be ready to talk just in walking in and saying did you do it? You're going to have to find a relationship, some reason for them wanting to participate. And you have to find a way to where you can have a discussion with them.

And I think clearly, in developing that, you cannot violate the law, and I think it's clear, also, that you can't enforce the law while enforcing -- you cannot enforce the law while violating the law. It's a principle that I think every legitimate law enforcement agency supports.

PHILLIPS: So, Ron, exception to the Miranda may be necessary to prevent perjury?

KUBY: Well, that's been a well-crafted exception. I mean, Miranda is considered a shield against police misconduct. But it's never been allowed to be used as a sword by the defendant to get up on the witness stand and give a story much different than the one he or she gave to the police.

And if a defendant does that, in fact, there has been a well- crafted and well-recognized exception that allows you to impeach that person's credibility by confronting them with their prior statement, even if it had been obtained without Miranda.

And I got to say, if all cops were like Chief Parks, there would be a lot fewer defense lawyers in business.

PHILLIPS: You know, I thought these two were going to go at each other, and look at this.

KUBY: Just goes to show.

(LAUGHTER) PHILLIPS: It's a love connection. It's not a bad thing, Chief, to have Ron Kuby on your side, believe me.

Gentlemen, Bernard Parks, Ron Kuby, thank you.

PARKS: Thank you very much.

PHILLIPS: It was a pleasure. We'll follow what the high court does and bring you two back. Thank you.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com