LAW/GralInt-Podcast: Closing Arguments: Criminal Law (Supreme Court decisions)

The following information is used for educational purposes only.




Podcast: Closing Arguments: Criminal Law (Supreme Court decisions)














































Transcript (unedited):




Welcome back to closing arguments here on KM BZ am your host Joshua Matthews. Today we're talking about big Supreme Court decisions over time in this is going to be one of the big ones that. Although hopefully doesn't play a major role in your day to day life. It's one that everybody's heard everybody's familiar with. It is really can't turn on the TV show or a movie without hearing this at some point. And this is the case of Miranda V Arizona. And this is where the the idea of -- Moran -- comes from. You always hear the police in the television programs the other rights remain silent anything you say cantor will be used to do -- -- a court of law. How you have the right to an attorney if you cannot and afford an attorney one will be appointed to you by the courts. These are the things of the Supreme Court set a defendant had a right to know before being questioned before giving any information. There is a common misconception. That if you don't read someone their Miranda rights at the time that you arrest them. That that's an automatic. Technical foul and the arrest is no good in the individual has to be let -- that's not the case. Or what is the case is that -- if you don't inform the individual of their rights if you don't let them know that they have the right to remain silent if you don't let them know that they have the right. To have an attorney rep represent them during questioning. Then anything that they say cannot be used in court naturally all means you can still build a case. You can still try to convict him you can get a conviction. The conviction can't be overturned because they weren't read their rights the conviction can only be overturned. If they want to read their rights and part of the evidence that resulted in the conviction. Was. Statements that they made to the police were so if they made a confession and at that -- confession. If they lied to the police -- gave false or misleading testimony to police. And that information is is presented to a jury and the jury has the opportunity consider that as part of their deliberation process. Then. They conviction can be overturned so again the important part about this because this is a question I don't practice and criminal law. But I know that criminal attorneys get this question a lot. You know they didn't read his Miranda rights don't they have to let him go well you know it just means that they can't use any thing that he or she may have said. -- they're being held her while they're being questioned against them in a court of law a later time and so. There is a distinction there it is not an automatic get out of jail free card. The way it's often present and on TV that. That's one of those import an interest in little cases. And of course if you're involved in criminal law. It's important for a whole host of other reasons because it gets down to. What are the rights of the individual. And what is it that we're trying to protect. Many many. Famous people have senator over time. Benjamin Franklin. Probably made the statement more popular in this country than anybody else but. Saying that better that hundred guilty men go free. Then one innocent. Be imprisoned and the idea being there. -- we have to protect the system and the protecting the system is more important than. The individual case. And so that's something that that we look at and that's where these things like Miranda rights comment. We have to make sure that we have a system that. Insurers. Fairness and protects the rights of the accused. Because not every single person who's ever accused of a crime is guilty -- early in my career I did. Handle some cases of the federal level criminal cases. And it was part of something. Special panel of attorneys who could be brought in to assist for defendants who did not have enough money to to provide for themselves. Under the ethical rules. For attorneys. If you have to -- parties who are opposing in in a case they can't be represented by two different members of the same firm. Despite what you might -- Boston Legal every week. And as a result although the federal probe the federal system does have. Its own. Federally appointed and defense attorneys for her and -- It when there's more than one defendant they have to bring in outside counsel to help out my I was one of the people on the on the panel who did some of those cases. And I kind of have an interest in record immense. My first two cases of both ended up being dropped against my clients. Within days of trial because evidence was found that actually. Exonerated my clients in both cases one in one case I had. Defended a woman who had been accused of driving a getaway car in a bank robbery in and tell they caught the woman who actually drove the getaway car. And that was about. Six or seven weeks after the original trial it. So while I am I am not one who believes that a lot of people are falsely imprisoned -- a lot of people. Are falsely convicted there are those cases had that case gone to trial when it was first supposed to go to trial. And I believe that a jury probably would have found my client guilty. Despite the fact that we later found that she was not. My second case was a similar case. Everything came from. A particular snitch -- -- drug case to who pointed a finger at everybody never met in order trying get. A more lenient sentence. In the end after seven or eight months of litigation. And I think trial was set for a Wednesday. The power to begin on Wednesday on Friday afternoon and I got a call from prosecutor. We'd spent the last several weeks am trying to convince me and convince my client that my client should. -- -- to a plea agreement to avoid. A very prolonged jail sentence and that Friday before trial got a call. From the end assistant US attorney's office that. Upon talking to. There -- once again he'd actually inform them I don't know that was the wrong guy. I never actually had anything to do with them. So there are those cases out there and it is important that we protect our justice system and and that's where cases like Miranda. The Arizona come and so important. Another big case this is one everybody knows Roe vs. Wade. This is. A really came down to two sides of a coin one being. Does an unborn child. Have the right to start life. Right to be born. And the other side being and does a woman have the right to choose. Not to carry a child to full term. This is one of the toughest cases. Really in in judicial history. Because. The court believed. And many attorneys believe too many. A US citizens believe. That really. There should not be a blanket prohibition. On abortion certainly not all Americans believe that my -- foods to imply that but there are an awful lot of people. Who think abortion and maybe it should be an option at least in certain cases. The question then was whether or not states have the right. Two outlawed across the border to say that you could never have an abortion. What's interesting about this case is that. Even. Some uh 040 years later. And it has been -- -- its little over forty years now. This would still debated because really trying to find something in the pass a tuition that says that a woman has a right to an abortion. Is going to be really really tough and keep in mind that's the only document the Supreme Court asked to work with. They asked to take the state laws or federal laws that are written. And then compare them to what's in the past that issue and then and only if they find it there unconstitutional command overturn them. The hard part in this case. Who was. Determining whether or not somebody had a right to an abortion and it it was an extension of weather and an individual had a right to. Excuse me a right to privacy. And the Supreme Court found the right to privacy should extend. To woman's decision to have an abortion. Despite the fact if you go back and read the constitution if you read the bill -- -- she won't see the word privacy anywhere and there. There is no. Written out. Right to to privacy interest doesn't exist but it's a concept that's been a part. The American psyche and an American jurisprudence. Really from the beginning the court has found on multiple occasions that although the right is not written down somewhere it does exist. And they extended that. To include the right to abortion. In Roe vs. -- one of the questions that we get a lot of times with regard to the Supreme Court and these cases is. If so many people on the court these days are more conservative which has been. The case to a large extent in recent years. Why don't we see this case come back why don't we soon see an overturned and again it goes back to that idea that once something's it to the -- decided. Boy you better you better really have something strong. If you're gonna try to change them for gonna try to overturn that the Supreme Court doesn't like to overturn itself. And it so it's highly unlikely that any member of any Supreme Court. At any point in the future would ever. Advocate taking this case back up even the most conservative justices will tell you. It's that -- been decided and it's it's beyond anything that we can do about it now yes in theory they're ways they can go back and look at that issue but it. If you're waiting for that data com you're gonna win a long long time. The other big case Lawrence V Texas inning and I said this would be kind of our -- antidote to the Dred Scott case this is a case. Where the state of Texas had certain laws on the books. Outlawing certain types of sexual activity and that sexual activity. Largely. Was going to be. Activity that would be engaged in primarily by homosexual couples now. I will point out. That most of the laws. Outlawing it homosexual conduct. Word directed specifically at men and specifically at the exact conduct that took place and so on fact there were things. Without getting too graphic here there were things that a man and woman could do that would actually be in violation. Of the same laws so I'm not all of this was directed specifically. At same sex. Relations but. In the case of Lawrence V Texas. Police knocked down the door. Came and found a couple of guys in the middle of things. And what happened became history we talk about that -- to break here closing arguments on KM BZ.