Become a Creator today!Start creating today - Share your story with the world!
Start for free
00:00:00
00:00:01
#14 North Carolina v. Butler
28 Plays2 months ago
In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case North Carolina v. Butler.
A man is arrested by the FBI, who gave him both a verbal and written notification of his rights. WB refused to sign a form indicating that he wished to waive his rights. Statements to the agents were included in evidence against him at trial. He was convicted, the North Carolina Supreme Court overturned the conviction, and the State cried foul.
The question before the court: can a suspect’s statements be used against him if he did not explicitly say he was waiving his Miranda rights?
---
For complete episode information, check out our episode guide on our website at https://relitigated.com/2025/07/23/14-north-carolina-v-butler.
Recommended
Transcript
Introduction to Relitigated Podcast
00:00:00
Speaker
Hi, welcome to Relitigated, the show where five friends who are absolutely not lawyers attempt to retry a real Supreme Court case. I'm your host, Nikki, and this is episode 14, North Carolina versus Butler, decided in 1979.
00:00:18
Speaker
A quick note before we get started. As always, we try our best to represent the facts and decisions in the case as accurately as possible, but we're not lawyers and nothing in this episode should be taken as legal advice.
00:00:32
Speaker
Okay, with that out of the way, let's start the show.
Meet the Hosts and Format Explanation
00:00:37
Speaker
I cannot segue up with that. I'm waiting for a good moment and it just gets worse and worse.
00:00:45
Speaker
So hello there. Welcome to the Relitigated Podcast. I'm your host, Nikki, and I'm joined by my co-host, Jarrett. Say hello, Jarrett. Hello.
00:00:57
Speaker
We also have with us three friends who will be role-playing as our justices. First, we have Associate Justice Mike. Hello. Next, we have Associate Justice Graham. I'm the king of role-play.
00:01:12
Speaker
And lastly, we have our Chief Justice Adam. Whoa, hold up. i don't I don't know what we've done. Thank you so much. Also, I resent the notion that I'm role-playing.
00:01:25
Speaker
If you're new to the show, here's how this works. Jarrett and i have selected a real Supreme Court case, and our justices do not know what case we have selected. Jarrett will introduce the case to us and walk us through the facts so we can all get familiar with the details.
00:01:43
Speaker
The justices are free to ask factual questions during this time, and we will answer as best as we can. Next, we'll move into oral arguments where I will role play as the petitioner and Jarrett will role play as the respondent.
00:01:58
Speaker
We each get seven minutes to make our case during which the justices can interrupt us and ask probing questions. When the arguments are over, the justices will deliberate and deliver their own opinions.
00:02:11
Speaker
The final rulings do not need to be unanimous.
Case Introduction: North Carolina v. Butler
00:02:13
Speaker
Majority opinion wins. Even if two or more justices agree in principle, they can disagree as to why. Once we've had our fun with our mock hearing, Jarrett and I will reveal what the Supreme Court really decided and talk about how we feel about the actual results and why this case matters.
00:02:32
Speaker
Sound good to everyone? Just like the real Supreme Court. Oh, yeah. I love it. Well, then I'll turn it over to Jared. Thank you much, Nikki.
00:02:43
Speaker
For this episode, we will be retrying North Carolina v. Butler. Our case begins at a gas station in Goldsboro, North Carolina, where two men are robbing the establishment at gunpoint.
00:02:58
Speaker
As the station attendant attempts to escape, he is shot and ultimately paralyzed by his wound. A week later, the attendant identified his assailant as WB, and a fugitive warrant was issued for WB's arrest.
00:03:13
Speaker
Ultimately, the FBI finds WB in an apartment in the Bronx in New York City. According to WB, they entered the apartment at 6 a.m., woke him up, and read him his rights.
00:03:26
Speaker
Specifically, the FBI agent read the following from a card. Before we ask you any questions, you must understand your rights. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in court.
00:03:40
Speaker
You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions and to have him with you during questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you before any questions if you wish.
Miranda Rights and the Issue of Waiver
00:03:52
Speaker
If you decide to answer questions now without a lawyer present, you will still have the right to answer questions to stop answering and at any time until you talk to a lawyer. Now, anyone who has turned on an American television in the past 40 years has heard this spiel before.
00:04:09
Speaker
Of course, this is known as the Miranda rights. This case is not the Miranda case, but Miranda is relevant, so I will provide a little bit of info about it at the end.
00:04:21
Speaker
For now, though, we return to the Bronx, or more accurately, New Rochelle, New York, which is where the FBI next took WB for questioning. Once in an interview room, WB allegedly told the agents that he completed at least 11 grades of school, so the agents considered WB to be literate and gave him an advice of rights form.
00:04:43
Speaker
Objection. Were these continuous years? What? Continuous years of school. Like 18, 11 years? 11 years a continuous school?
00:04:54
Speaker
He completed the 11th grade, essentially. Hmm, okay. Okay. ah thats ah So this form, the advice of rights form, is basically a restating of the Miranda rights, and it has a space for the suspect to sign at the bottom in order to acknowledge that they will answer questions without a lawyer present.
00:05:14
Speaker
According to the FBI agent who testified at his trial, WB affirmed that he understood his rights, and when asked to sign the advice of rights form, replied, quote, I will talk to you, but I am not signing any form.
00:05:29
Speaker
The FBI then reminded WB that he did not have to speak to them without a lawyer, and he said again, i won't sign the form. I will talk to you, but I won't sign the form. After that, WB went on to tell the FBI that he and the other man accused of the robbery had been drinking that day and did discuss committing the robbery.
00:05:49
Speaker
He also confirmed that he was at the gas station at the time of the robbery, but he asserted that he did not actually take part in the robbery and was not the one who shot the gas station attendant. Fast forward to WB's trial back in North Carolina, and his defense lawyer moves to have the FBI's testimony from WB's interrogation excluded from evidence.
00:06:11
Speaker
They argue that WB never explicitly confirmed that he wished to waive his right to counsel. In other words, he never signed the form confirming he understood his rights, and he never said out loud definitively that he did not want a lawyer.
00:06:29
Speaker
The trial court denied the motion and allowed the interrogation findings to be entered into evidence. At the conclusion of the trial, WB was convicted of robbery, kidnapping, and felonious assault.
00:06:42
Speaker
WB's defense appealed his conviction to the state Supreme Court, again arguing that the FBI's interrogation violated his Fifth Amendment rights. Since WB did not explicitly say or indicate that he was waiving his right to counsel,
00:06:57
Speaker
Anything he said to police without counsel present should be excluded. And the North Carolina Supreme Court agreed, arguing that the ruling in Miranda v. Arizona meant that the government needed to secure explicit waivers of rights in order to use any interactions as evidence.
00:07:16
Speaker
Of course, the state of North Carolina appealed this decision straight to the Supreme Court, and it now comes before us. So, justices, the question for this episode is, does the Miranda ruling require an explicit waiver of one's right to counsel?
00:07:33
Speaker
I love a good loophole, and I feel like we found a really valuable, exploitable loophole right here. I feel like after several episodes on this show, I'm going to be really good at getting away with crimes. Yeah.
00:07:47
Speaker
Just on technicalities. ah wonder if judges ever sit there and Think about like how good a crime they get away with. Bet they do. Can't stress enough, like we do at the beginning of every episode, that ah nobody involved in this is a lawyer. And that nothing we say should be taking as taken as legal device. Part of fancy law training is knowing what not to say. Yes.
00:08:12
Speaker
i mean i I think another season goes by and we
Arguments For and Against Explicit Waiver
00:08:15
Speaker
probably get our honorary um you know law degrees. probably We're least clerks or something. Yeah. Yeah. yeah Real quick, I promised earlier to do a bit of a refresher on Miranda.
00:08:27
Speaker
And I know that we've all heard of it and we've all heard the Miranda Wright spiel a million times, but it's important to know the actual specific outcome of the case because that actually gets talked about seldomly.
00:08:39
Speaker
You know, Like most topics on this show, the majority of my understanding on this comes from law and order. So that would be well welcomed. Welcomed in my court. Thank you, sir. How do I address you?
00:08:51
Speaker
and know how you address me. ah Counselor? Counselor. I guess. ah Please refresh us, Counselor. Yes. So there's actually a lot of parts to the decision, and I'm going to crib directly from Justia's summary just to keep things brief.
00:09:07
Speaker
ah So shout out to Justia for this. But even making this brief, it's going to be a lot. So... My apologies in advance, but here we go. First, quote, in the absence of other effective measures, the following procedures to safeguard the the Fifth Amendment privilege must be observed.
00:09:27
Speaker
The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent and that anything he says will be used against him in court. he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him.
00:09:49
Speaker
Second, if the individual indicates prior to or during questioning that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease. If he states that he wants an attorney, the questioning must cease until an attorney is present.
00:10:05
Speaker
Third, where an interrogation is conducted without the presence of an attorney and a statement is taken, a heavy burden rests on the government to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel.
00:10:21
Speaker
Fourth, where the individual answers some questions during in-custody interrogation, he has not waived his privilege and may invoke his right to remain silent thereafter.
00:10:33
Speaker
Fifth, The warnings required and the waiver needed are, in the absence of a fully effective equivalent, prerequisites to the admissibility of any statement, inculpatory or exculpatory, made by a defendant.
00:10:49
Speaker
and Lastly, the limitations on the interrogation process required for the protection of an individual's constitutional rights should not cause an undue interference with a proper system of law enforcement, as demonstrated by the procedures of the FBI and the safeguards afforded in other jurisdictions.
00:11:09
Speaker
while this is not everything said in the Miranda decision, those are the main bits. Does anyone have any questions about that or want me to reread any of it? I know that that was kind of a lot.
00:11:23
Speaker
I know I'm a fancy Supreme Court justice and all, and it's been a minute i've been to listen since I've been to law school. Could you explain to us what it's exculpatory and inculpatory are?
00:11:34
Speaker
ah So inculpatory is basically um something that incriminates somebody or are is evidence that they committed the thing. Exculpatory is evidence that helps clear them.
00:11:46
Speaker
clear them Oh, okay.
00:11:52
Speaker
I think I understand all of this, yes. Let me see if I can summarize some of this Miranda stuff. So we know the Miranda rights spiel, you know, you have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you.
00:12:05
Speaker
You have a right to an attorney, blah, blah, blah, all that bit. And then some of the other pieces here are, you know, once if you start talking, you haven't actually waived your rights.
00:12:16
Speaker
Technically, you can always reassert those rights. It's just whatever you said. You said, right, that that's on the record. But at any time you could shut up or at any time you can ask for a lawyer. And if you do, then the questioning has to stop and they have to either get you a lawyer or wait for you to decide to talk to them again.
00:12:34
Speaker
and Miranda has nothing to do with what you as the suspect. Yeah. actually do other than you're willing, you can talk freely, but it has nothing to do with like whether you're cooperative with the process or not. It has nothing to do with whether you assert affirmatively you want a lawyer or not.
00:12:54
Speaker
It just has to do with the way that law enforcement has to regard the evidence that is taken during your captivity. Yeah. So it's basically, um, requirements of the police for them to inform suspects of their rights before taking any kind of statement.
00:13:11
Speaker
Yeah, but it's not it's not in any way contingent on whether the suspect is actually cooperative with the process or not. ah No, it's just saying, ah well, I think it's just saying, like, yeah, cops, you gotta... Because the case that started it was a guy who said stuff because he didn't know that he was allowed to just not.
00:13:32
Speaker
Yeah. And I think the important thing here to to ah that might... Or i think the important piece of Miranda, especially for this case, is this idea that ultimately what the prosecutor wants to do is get your testimony to police during questioning entered into evidence.
00:13:56
Speaker
And what the Miranda case said was there are some steps required of the government to In order to make that testimony valid to be put into evidence. f f So it it raised the bar on the government and on law enforcement say, like look, you got to do some stuff in order for that testimony to be entered into evidence. If that stuff hasn't happened, then...
00:14:25
Speaker
You know, it's no good. You can't use it. Let me ask my my question in a way more pointed and ridiculous way. If I get arrested and I just pretend I'm a dog for three days and refuse to assert that I want a lawyer, it's not like that can just stop the legal system from proceeding with trying to prosecute me.
00:14:41
Speaker
Oh yeah. Yeah. yeah That yeah has to do with the admission of your, of your statements. But, um, cause yeah, this comes up sometimes, um, where defendant will be like, oh, they never gave me the Miranda rights and, and maybe got to start over. And it's like, oh, that you can't try. And it's like, well, you know, they, they found you holding the gun. It was smoking. There was a guy who was shot and he pointed at you and said, oh, that guy shot me. And then there were eight witnesses and cameras.
00:15:06
Speaker
Um, The police don't really need to get a statement, you know but if they did, if they wanted a statement, then they'd have to you know do the whole spiel. I feel like this will be relevant later.
00:15:21
Speaker
if yeah the I know that the Miranda ruling protects you for you know using what you say as you know as evidence, but are the police or law enforcement allowed to use what you say Are they allowed to use it to gather additional evidence and then not use what you say, but use the additional evidence that they gathered? Or is that, you know, they can only use they if if you if you are not ready, your Miranda rights, they can't use anything that you say.
00:15:49
Speaker
Your statements can't be used against you in court. I see. ah enjoy that answer. Yeah, there's a lot. we're we're not Obviously, we're not doing Miranda. Miranda is a very famous case, so we all kind of know what the what the outcome of that case is. So we're never going to do an episode on Miranda.
00:16:08
Speaker
But this case hinges on Miranda, and so we actually kind of have to go through it. And it's kind of a lot. like I think it's way more, certainly when I was reading through it, it was way more than what I assumed it was.
00:16:23
Speaker
like i summarized a lot of it. or I stole Justia's summary of a lot of it. It's a long decision. There's a lot of ins and outs. it's It's interesting. You should go read it. You should know it as an American citizen.
00:16:40
Speaker
But it is just the foundation upon which this case is now going to hinge. Yeah, our fight today is about how we read this case in you know and police doing things. so Any other questions factual in nature that I can, Nikki and I can, uh, try and answer for you.
00:17:03
Speaker
I mean, I have a lot of questions, but none not relevant to the case at hand. All right. I believe Nikki, you are going to be the petitioner on this one. You'll be representing North Carolina.
00:17:15
Speaker
Yes. Uh, yeah. The state of, of, uh, North Carolina or the prosecution essentially. Um, All right. ah Has my time started yet?
00:17:27
Speaker
Seven minutes is on the clock. Okay. ah Mr. Chief Justice Adam, and may it please the court. Oh, I am pleased.
00:17:38
Speaker
Issues with the Miranda warnings have come up time and again across the United States. But North Carolina is singular in its interpretation of the Supreme Court ruling and completely out of step with how we understand the warning and its purpose.
00:17:57
Speaker
North Carolina is locked into one rigid interpretation, reading things into the decision that were never intended. So North Carolina is stating that to provide information, an individual absolutely has to sign something or to make an express explicit statement.
00:18:18
Speaker
In this case, the individual was advised of his rights, both orally and in writing. The police never lied to him about his rights. They never forced him to participate.
00:18:29
Speaker
After being informed of his rights twice and reminded that he could have a lawyer present, WB said, quote, I'll talk to you. He said it twice.
00:18:43
Speaker
Regardless of his refusal to sign the form, everything about this exchange makes it pretty clear that WB did not wish to delay or cease questioning. He clearly chose to waive his rights, and he voluntarily spoke with law enforcement.
00:18:57
Speaker
The prosecution, in proving that WB was given the warning and that he knowingly chose to proceed, has done its job. There is thus no reason for his statements to not be admitted, and this was the finding of the trial court.
00:19:13
Speaker
The North Carolina Supreme Court is relying on an inflexible and frankly unworkable rule that disregards the circumstances, gestures, and words that regularly inform interpretation of regular human communication.
00:19:28
Speaker
There is no requirement in the Miranda decision that a person has to sign a stack of legal documents or recite a precise magic incantation.
00:19:39
Speaker
That is not what this is about, and North Carolina has lost the forest for the trees. The point of Miranda is to ensure that a suspect is notified of their rights.
00:19:50
Speaker
This way, in their interactions with police, they can make informed decisions about whether and how to proceed and do so voluntarily. Miranda focuses on this substance while the North Carolina Supreme Court is fixed on the packaging.
00:20:09
Speaker
In this interpretation, the North Carolina Supreme Court changes an eminently reasonable protection that is afforded all of us by the Constitution and into a ritual divorced from meaning and into overprotection that encroaches upon autonomy.
00:20:28
Speaker
Protecting the defendant from his own intelligent decisions is unnecessarily paternalistic and totally undermines the principle that individuals should be free to make their own choices. In a case such as this, where the individual is informed of his rights and opts to speak, the Supreme Court essentially deprived him of an opportunity to make a decision and to take the action that he chose voluntarily.
00:20:53
Speaker
The Fifth Amendment says that a person cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself. Just because WB did not like the consequences of his decision does not mean that he was subject to mel to law enforcement malfeasance.
00:21:09
Speaker
The investigators never forced him to speak. They provided him with ample opportunity to consider consider his choices and never engaged in any action that overcame his free will.
00:21:21
Speaker
Even if he voluntarily incriminated himself, there was no Fifth Amendment violation. The Constitution entitles us to protection from government intrusion and overreach, but does not promise us handholding and paternalism.
00:21:39
Speaker
And with that, I yield to questions.
00:21:43
Speaker
Is this bait? This feels like bait in our current political climate.
00:21:51
Speaker
Bait in what sense? Like you're giving us a real a real easy slam dunk for but the prosecution here. Yeah, I would like to hear the defense. I'm looking forward to what Jared has say for himself.
00:22:04
Speaker
but What have you gotten yourself into this time, mister? I don't have any
Justices' Deliberations and Opinions
00:22:09
Speaker
questions. This feels frighteningly clear cut to me. um Yeah, it's too straightforward. yeah It does feel like a trap.
00:22:19
Speaker
Where's the twist?
00:22:21
Speaker
Well, it's, ah I mean, it is a simple straightforward question, honestly. This also seems very similar to the last one the three of us were judges on.
00:22:33
Speaker
Is this a theme? this Is this purposeful?
00:22:37
Speaker
This is actually an elaborate version of that test in Blade Runner to see if we're human. um i um Yeah, this is the first for me. I don't think I have any questions.
00:22:48
Speaker
That other case was in North Carolina too, wasn't it? the The cops there have a way of abridging people's rights. Wait, which one? There were a few North Carolina cases. Yeah, North Carolina popping off. H.A. with the Alford plea?
00:23:05
Speaker
Yes. that was That was North Carolina. Yeah.
00:23:10
Speaker
um I am curious, what is that is this form? this This form that he was asked to sign, is this a federal form? ah Yes. And it basically lists out the rights, the Miranda rights.
00:23:22
Speaker
When did that become a thing after the Miranda decision? Like, when did they decide, like, we need to put this in in writing, need a memo for this? Um, probably immediately. it's, it's pretty, i I would imagine the practical thing to do would be for police departments and authorities to just have a thing in writing and then give it to cops, like read this.
00:23:44
Speaker
I have a lot of things I feel like I can say right now that I'm not going to say. No, don't embellish. Just read what's on the paper. Seriously. Just follow the damn script. Yes.
00:24:00
Speaker
All right. um
00:24:03
Speaker
I just want to say the Supreme Court justice rests.
00:24:08
Speaker
All right. That's convenient because that's seven minutes.
00:24:14
Speaker
All right. um My timers booted up and ready whenever you want to start. and All right. Here we go. and Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the court.
00:24:25
Speaker
It does. I appreciate that the state of North Carolina or other states feel like obtaining an explicit waiver of rights from a suspect feels like oh so great a burden.
00:24:36
Speaker
But this burden comes straight from this Supreme Court and miranda in the Miranda v. Arizona decision. Remember, in that case, Chief Justice Warren wrote, and I quote, if the interrogation continues without the presence of an attorney and a statement is taken, a heavy burden rests on the government to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and and intelligently waived his privilege against self-incrimination.
00:25:05
Speaker
An interrogation and questioning while in custody is an inherently coercive situation. You are stripped of your freedom and autonomy. You are put into an uncomfortable position where you are dependent on your inquisitors for everything.
00:25:20
Speaker
Want to eat? Want to use the restroom? Want to go home? It's their rules and it's their game. It seems only fair that with all that power and control that the state be required to get explicit acknowledgement from a suspect that they wish to waive their rights before they ask their questions.
00:25:40
Speaker
If we allow for implicit waiving of rights, that means we're asking the police to decide whether a suspect has waived their rights or not. That shouldn't be up to them. This case is a prime example of how little we can trust law enforcement's powers of deduction.
00:25:57
Speaker
They decided that the respondent was literate, but they conducted no tests to prove that assumption. They gave the respondent a piece of paper that explained his rights, and the only thing they asked him was, do you understand?
00:26:11
Speaker
But they never asked a single question to test his understanding. They just took his response at face value. And why would they test it any further?
00:26:23
Speaker
That would be work, and it might disprove their assumption. Then they asked the respondent to sign the document, which would be the only piece of physical evidence that would prove that the respondent was actually waiving his rights.
00:26:37
Speaker
And what did he do? He refused to sign. This was an explicit signal that he either did not understand his rights, or he did not agree to talk on the record with law enforcement without a lawyer present.
00:26:49
Speaker
Either way, the fact that these are possible scenarios proves that trusting law enforcement to make these kinds of decisions is a mistake. But of course, this blatant piece of evidence, this refusal to sign, did not confirm law enforcement's assumptions of the respondents, so they just ignored its significance.
00:27:09
Speaker
Tell me, did the actions of the respondent appear to you to be the actions of a man who understood knowingly and intelligently his rights? Isn't it equally likely that he believed that not signing the waiver meant he was ah that he was not explicitly waiving his rights?
00:27:28
Speaker
The police have a vested interest every time in believing that you know what's going on. After all, they're not the ones under pressure in that situation. Can you imagine being woken up at 6 a.m., dragged out of bed, handcuffed, driven away to a claustrophobic interview room where you are watched and questioned?
00:27:48
Speaker
Every one of us here would struggle to keep things straight in that moment and that environment. For the officers, just another day at the office. the Fifth Amendment means anything and the Miranda v. Arizona decision means anything, you must side with the North Carolina Supreme Court.
00:28:07
Speaker
It is good and necessary step to make law enforcement get an explicit acknowledgement from you that you are waiving your rights before they ask you questions. Otherwise, we're just letting them decide whether or not you're waiving.
00:28:21
Speaker
It's good for the courts because it removes the burden of having to interpret law enforcement's interpretation. And finally, it's even good for prosecutors because it removes doubt from the foundations of their case.
00:28:35
Speaker
This is a good thing for society. Make the government ensure that you are explicitly not using your rights anymore, that you have explicitly waived.
00:28:46
Speaker
It's not difficult. If somebody doesn't explicitly indicate to you by a signature on a form or oral statement that they are waiving their rights, Don't assume they're waiving their rights.
00:28:59
Speaker
Period. The North Carolina Supreme Court got this right. I trust that you will too. Thank you, and I yield to questions.
00:29:10
Speaker
This entire goddamn thing is a psyop term you conservative convinced. Okay, so the Miranda rights start with like the first few words.
00:29:21
Speaker
It's literally the first thing they decided to put in the thing is you have the right to remain silent. But It's not the obligation to remain silent, right? Like, what's the difference?
00:29:34
Speaker
Like. The difference is. is ah are are they imp employed Are you implored to exercise your right to remain silent? Or is it just like, you know, it's an option you have. the The point here is that they are trying to enter your statements into evidence to be used against you. theyre They are compelling you in that scenario if they enter it into evidence to have you testify against yourself.
00:29:57
Speaker
And my our argument is that. the The bar for entering that into evidence should be. That some some indication that you explicitly.
00:30:12
Speaker
Waived that right. Otherwise, we have to. We're assuming that you did. Isn't. Speaking after you've been told you have the right to remain silent and explicit waiving of that right? No, because it has to be knowingly and intelligently waived.
00:30:30
Speaker
Somebody who just is speaking, we didn't interrogate to determine their level of understanding. they They could have a mental illness and they're just speaking, they or they could just straight up not understand what that means.
00:30:43
Speaker
I would hazard the hazard by the numerous examples of citizens just talking to the police, even if it was not in their best interest, that Americans don't have the best understanding of what the right to remain silent means.
00:30:58
Speaker
and All right, nice work. I'm liberal again. and think it's contingent on the government to get that explicit acknowledgement and to test and make sure. they They collect evidence. That's what they do. They should have to prove that as well.
00:31:14
Speaker
So out curiosity, in this case, what would reach the bar of the explicit proof? Because they said it a bunch of times and the guy said, okay, I'm not signing. Should they just be like, okay, we're not going to listen to you? Like, what's the... He's a genius, c sir. He's found in the one loophole.
00:31:35
Speaker
We have to keep him forever. I guess they should have been immediately suspicious. Clarification of what explicit is, i guess. Yes, right. They should have been suspicious that ah that he wouldn't sign the form that acknowledged his rights.
00:31:49
Speaker
And that that says on the form, you know, i will I understand that I'm talking to you without a lawyer and I'm approving that. He did not sign that. He would not sign that, which means he would not put his name to that statement, but yet continued to talk to them.
00:32:03
Speaker
At the very least, that shows that he may not have had an adequate understanding of his rights, which is exactly what Miranda is for, is to make sure we have an an understanding of our rights.
00:32:15
Speaker
You are out of time. All right.
00:32:19
Speaker
Man, justice is on a strict time limit.
00:32:25
Speaker
You can give me more time if you want. We're on a tight ship in my court.
00:32:31
Speaker
um ah Justices, do you have any further questions? i just I just don't know where y'all get off trying to make me pro-law enforcement. Right? I'm sickened by this. the hell is going on?
00:32:45
Speaker
This is nonsense. Where does it end? This man has to sign a piece of paper for it to be admitted into evidence. I understand the the overarching theme of we need to make it difficult for law enforcement.
00:33:00
Speaker
yeah we We need to put as many checks and balances in place with law enforcement as possible to ensure that they aren't putting innocent people in prison and that you're you're innocent until proven guilty. But now you get paperwork involved.
00:33:15
Speaker
But the man has to sign a piece of paper. And if he decides not to sign a piece of paper, then just whatever he says goes or it does, is it is not admitted. I, I tend to lean into the slippery slope idea of like, where does this end?
00:33:30
Speaker
You know what? you At some point we have to, we have to draw the line and making this guy, Jarrett made the point that because he did not sign That there, you know, he, that means that he could not have, put like, there's a potential that he didn't understand his rights.
00:33:49
Speaker
I think that because he didn't sign, it's, I'm assuming, um he didn't sign because he knew it was guilty. He didn't sign because he knew it wasn't good for him. I think he very much understood his rights.
00:34:00
Speaker
Yeah. So i'm I'm frustrated with this whole operation. i can't believe that I have to be on the side of law enforcement on this. It's preposterous and ridiculous and disgusting.
00:34:11
Speaker
And I yield my time. i I think we moved right into deliberation with that one. ah was There was no question there was No question. in there for me no question that was more of a statement. so Sorry, I had to get that off.
00:34:30
Speaker
I'm still curious for, in this particular case, what the like explicit waving, like what in the cop situation, what would be the correct thing in this case that would satisfy that?
00:34:47
Speaker
I think it could have literally asked one more question and just said, do do you wish to speak to us without a lawyer, understanding whatever you say to us, we will use against you in a court of law?
00:35:06
Speaker
And if he had said yes to that question, right? it' Just one additional question I think would have done it. ah But they- like You asked me like eight times already. But that is a very specific question that gets at understanding.
00:35:21
Speaker
So, okay. So the first reading of the Miranda rights when they're like law and order style at the scene of the arrest, that's just to broadcast it. Make sure you heard it. Later on, they got to gather the actual proof that you understood it and like internalized it.
00:35:38
Speaker
and Then they can interrogate you if you're like, yeah, I get it. I'm a cool guy though. No lawyer for me. I'm going to represent myself. I got chat sheet BT. I mean, I'm, uh, I'm, I'm out of town at a time, but I'll just, I'll just say one more thing. I mean, you know,
00:35:55
Speaker
They could mumble the Miranda rights. they get like all if If the bar is just, I said the magic words, as ah opposing counsel said, the magic words enables law enforcement.
00:36:07
Speaker
You said that very dismissively. Enables law enforcement. so so There's no magic words that protects the suspect, but there are magic words that protect the law enforcement of what they intend.
00:36:19
Speaker
Come on. You better watch it, buddy. I can't hold you in real contempt because I ain't got no bailiffs, but I'll hold you in personal contempt.
00:36:31
Speaker
So we don't have. I do have a question. We don't have any evidence that law enforcement asked him that specific question. They they just beat around the bush, if you will. And no, they did. like They asked like a whole bunch of times.
00:36:45
Speaker
was this so this This is a factual question, so I will answer this question. is it This has nothing to do with my time. I'm in clerk mode now. Yeah. According to the transcript that I read, and Nikki, you can weigh in on this too, ah keep me honest.
00:37:04
Speaker
The police, the FBI agent who testified didn't said that never said that they asked a question like the one that I just posed. Right. Are do you do you want to talk to us even knowing without a lawyer, even knowing that anything you say to us, we were going to use against you in court? They didn't ask that question.
00:37:21
Speaker
I think the question that they asked was, ah do you understand your rights and do you want to talk to us in between swings of the truncheon?
00:37:32
Speaker
And so did he, what was his, so it says here that he affirms that he knows his rights. So they asked him, do you understand your rights? And he said, yes. Yeah.
00:37:45
Speaker
Or I think, was it he nodded? he yeah, he provided an affirmative indication, I guess we'll say. Maybe he was just being a people pleaser and just saying yes, because they asked him.
00:38:00
Speaker
I would not sign any forms. I feel like like I need to hear the tape.
00:38:08
Speaker
Is there a tape? Can we hear the tape? How belligerent he was being in the moment might play a huge factor in whether... I mean, I just, I just want to know likes exactly with you what the FBI agent said and exactly how he responded.
00:38:19
Speaker
Exactly. right There's probably some important context in that, you know? but Like if they said like, do you understand your rights? And there was the answer was like, rah, rah, rah, like the Tasmanian devil sounds like understandable that, you know,
00:38:31
Speaker
So we're missing we're missing context without the tape of what I'm saying in the room. If he just nods and keeps talking or if he says, yes, I understand. And then like that's different. That's a good point. Maybe he was just nodding. Give me a second. Maybe I can try to like pull it up. um I can go onto and kind of see.
00:38:53
Speaker
It might take a minute. You such powers? Yeah, I can pull up the transcript of the hearing where they- Oh.
00:39:00
Speaker
you know is ah Because I feel like even even asking the question that Jared said to ask, I feel like an affirmative answer to that still could be him not understanding.
00:39:12
Speaker
He took 11 years of consecutive school, though. so That's true. like Okay, so it says they they he got the form, he read it, when asked if he understood, he replied that he did.
00:39:25
Speaker
And then he wouldn't sign... um And then they were like, okay, but you don't have to talk to us. You don't have to sign the form, but the agents would like to talk to them. And he said, I'll talk to you, but I'm not signing any form.
00:39:39
Speaker
did Did he say why he wouldn't sign it?
00:39:45
Speaker
Um, I don't believe so. He probably rightly assumed it would introduce ambiguity into the proceedings. Perhaps, you know. Well, other way around. like it It would reduce ambiguity.
00:39:57
Speaker
I think he perfectly understood. his His case made it to the highest court in the land. so like Like, why would you? wait Here's what I don't get. Like, why would you say I'm not going to sign the form, but then say all that stuff?
00:40:14
Speaker
That does actually lend itself to the argument that he was not competent and did not understand what was being asked of him. um Let's see. So it said, okay, so he asked if he understood it. He applied that he did. He wouldn't sign it.
00:40:29
Speaker
um Let's see. Respondent was in the possession of his faculties and did not appear to be under the influence of alcohol or narcotic drugs. ah Told him he had an 11th grade education, appeared to know what was going on about him, appeared to respond to questions in sequential fashion.
00:40:48
Speaker
I guess my question is, how do you prove that somebody understood something? Because that's, I guess that's what we're asking here is we're trying to figure out if we can ascertain if this man understood what he was, what he read and understood when he answered in the affirmative, exactly what he said. And I think that that should probably make him sign a form or something.
00:41:17
Speaker
Yes. that's And we're full circle.
00:41:23
Speaker
Oh, So I would like, like, should, should the FBI have just said, like, look, if you're not going to sign this form, we're not talking.
00:41:33
Speaker
Yeah. I mean, guess until, can you just not do anything until the court appointed lawyer shows up at that point? So that's an that's an interesting thought. The idea, okay, if there is a form, but there's an option for the form not to be signed, but that might not matter, then what's the point of having a form? like i That's an interesting point, Mr. Chief Justice. The idea of, you know, if there is a form, it needs to be signed before we talk. If there's not a form, then we don't necessarily need that. But because there is a form that's not signed, God, y'all pick great cases. This is fun.
00:42:11
Speaker
Porquenolos, todos, they all go to jail.
00:42:15
Speaker
Everybody's guilty. Sad but true. includ Including us, the four of us. We're all sinners, really. Preach to sell Salvador. Yep.
00:42:24
Speaker
Porquenolos, todos. Is that our new doctor new doctrine? I do think it's interesting, though, that WB confirmed that he was president at the gas station. He confirmed that they discussed robbing it.
00:42:36
Speaker
he did sit He then did not confirm that he participated in the robbery or the shooting, and he also knew not to sign the form. To me, that sounds like somebody that knows exactly what's going on.
00:42:47
Speaker
All I'm guilty of is giving that guy a really good idea. That's all I'm saying. ah but You did say that I do understand.
00:42:59
Speaker
like if there was not there' If there was no indication that he answered that question in a, like, actual affirmative. Like if it was just a nod or he didn't answer it and kept talking, but the fact that he said that he understood it and then said, I'll talk to you, but I won't sign any man. Maybe he just doesn't know what the hell's going. Maybe he's just an idiot. Maybe, maybe that 12th year really is important.
00:43:25
Speaker
That's yeah. It's when I like the, you take civics and that kind of thing. Yeah. Yeah. Either he was the smartest guy in the room or the the dumbest guy in the room. I agree with Jared that we need the, I think some sort of explicit like confirmation that they understand the rights is should be required.
00:43:48
Speaker
but in this case, I don't know if, well, was going to say it sounds like it was explicit, but then his actions confer that maybe he didn't know what the hell was going on. Well, if he reads a form and says, i understand this, and then and and then doesn't sign the form.
00:44:07
Speaker
It's almost in a literate person. They ah really good at hiding the fact that they don't know what the heck they're reading. e
00:44:17
Speaker
I feel like by the time we get to this point in deliberations, we usually have some sort of fire underneath us in one direction or another. But this one is confounding. I've whipsawed back and forth a couple of times on how definitively I feel like I can rule on this.
00:44:32
Speaker
I think we've all learned something today. I'm not sure what it is, but yeah, like far be it from me to want to give the police expanded power to interrogate, but ah yeah you really do have to respect asking somebody, do you understand? Will you sign this? No, like it's kind of a binary, right? Like you either sign it or you don't. Signing is yes and not signing it is no.
00:44:57
Speaker
And yeah, I'm just rehashing now. He wasn't signing it because he didn't he didn't say. he didn't know Did he ever say why he wasn't signing I feel like that would be important. Yeah, we'll never know. I think that's a question that people generally don't ask.
00:45:18
Speaker
Yeah, to all my knowledge from research, he he never stated why he wouldn't sign it. And there's no indication that the FBI asked him ever asked him why he wouldn't sign it.
00:45:31
Speaker
feel like that was a misstep. So and it never even came up like and in the appeals getting to the Supreme Court, like no, no one along the way asked, why didn't you sign the paper?
00:45:45
Speaker
Well, once it gets to once the conviction happens and it gets appealed, there's no new information. as As far as I understand the process, the appeals court gets only the information that was available at trial.
00:46:00
Speaker
hmm. Yeah, they just get like a record and you can't like go back and get. You can't like bring someone in for like. Yeah, there's no investigative portion of an appeal of the appeals process.
Mock Trial Conclusion: Decision to Retry
00:46:16
Speaker
It's just like, here's here's the information we have in front of us. Oh, you want more? Sucks for you. This is, yeah, this is why you might sometimes have heard of like, oh, this, but why would this defense lawyer have asked this or that? And it's like, because they're setting something up for appeal.
00:46:32
Speaker
So it has to get a record in so that it can be used later. I would like to, I would like to apologize just quickly to everybody for my beginning soliloquy, because I might have a different opinion now.
00:46:46
Speaker
I just want to make, I just want to put that on the record. If we're, what you know, Chief Justice, you mentioned at this point, we usually have some sort of idea and I've gone back and forth myself.
00:46:59
Speaker
One of the, i'm I'm always kind of stuck to the idea of like slippery slope and want to make sure that we don't ever get into a situation where it's like, where where does this end? um That's something I feel strongly about.
00:47:11
Speaker
At the same time, I feel more strongly about the idea that the police have to do a perfect job. We should expect perfection from law enforcement, and so especially when people's lives are on the line.
00:47:24
Speaker
And as we review some of this evidence and we recognize that the police could have asked additional questions and they could have done more to determine whether or not um he was explicitly waiving his rights.
00:47:40
Speaker
I'm inclined to believe that because the police did not do a perfect job or a near perfect job in investigating this, that that evidence should not have been admissible.
00:47:53
Speaker
um Because we can't, because you're right, as we go round and round, this does somewhat prove to me that it is pretty difficult to ascertain exactly why he didn't sign the form.
00:48:04
Speaker
And because we don't have that answer, I don't feel comfortable Agreeing with myself from 15 minutes ago. You know, yeah, that version of you is a real asshole. And yeah, I didn't like, I did not like him very much. I agree.
00:48:20
Speaker
So I'm reviewing the facts of the case again, and I'm realizing that he admitted in court that prior to his arrest, he had been drinking. That actually makes me feel like, uh, consent was not obtained. Yeah.
00:48:36
Speaker
Wait, was it prior to his arrest or was it prior to the- No, it was prior the day of the crime. Oh, okay. I makes sense. He was drinking. Because like, yeah, because when he was observed by the agents, he wasn't under the influence.
00:48:49
Speaker
I see. He was drinking for four months straight. I mean, we don't know that, but it's- We don't not know. Yeah, we've- Yeah.
00:48:58
Speaker
Okay, okay. So that's out. um I'm looking for outs for this guy. i just I just want him to get a chance to rob a gas station and to see how he really performs. He didn't get his chance the first time, ostensibly. it was just an idea.
00:49:09
Speaker
Yeah, it was just a crazy concept of a plan.
00:49:14
Speaker
Jesus.
00:49:19
Speaker
And so the the the effect of all this is like, dude is free on the streets, like conviction overturns. yeah youre that's That's the end of it. Well, that's a good question. andn I can't remember, Nikki, did the to the North Carolina Supreme Court overturn the conviction or was it like you would have to retry him?
00:49:43
Speaker
um Or was like double jeopardy and join at that point? Let me... Hang on. I'm going to go and... pull up what I have here.
00:49:56
Speaker
um So the Supreme Court, the news North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the convictions um
00:50:05
Speaker
and ordered a new trial. and Okay. yeah So he would be retried and and I assume the argument would be that evidence would be excluded so the prosecution could retry it, but you know the case might the case they make would be altered.
00:50:22
Speaker
All right, people, back to zero. We got to rearrest him. We're going to start from scratch, reading his rights real clear this time. Yeah, well, let's start from scratch from scratch. I guess any evidence that wasn't related to his statements is still valid, right?
00:50:36
Speaker
Correct. Yeah. Yeah. Well, you know what? I think I've gone to the, yeah, they should have definitely had more explicit understanding on the waiver, especially if the retrying is an option.
00:50:52
Speaker
But if they reach if they retry them, doesn't that just present the same issues as the first trial? It's just they're shifting the venue. Well, no. I mean, if all the other ever other evidence was solid, the testimony, or there were other corroborating yeah ah witnesses, physical evidence, right? I see what you're saying. Yep.
00:51:10
Speaker
Yep. All right. I mean, it's in the back of everybody's head that this guy said all this stuff. So I don't know how you completely wipe that, but you know, that does seem kind of poisonous to the entire, entire thing. If it's supposed to be non-immiscible. Yeah.
00:51:24
Speaker
But what are you going
00:51:27
Speaker
Got to break a few eggs to make a justice omelet. Okay. So, um, I feel like, uh, we've all sort of like a, a bunch of, uh, discrete metronomes all come into sync now.
00:51:41
Speaker
And now we're all stuck on the left. We're all stuck on the left-hand setting. wrong and you know And you know what this means, though, right? You know that if we're all stuck on the left, then the real Supreme Court is finna hit us with the right.
00:51:54
Speaker
Oh, no. Yeah, they probably ruled this guy like summarily executed in the court before everyone goes home for the day. like We're going to really make an example of this guy. Show you appeal.
00:52:07
Speaker
Oh, wait, I guess it was the it was the state that appealed. Who appealed this to the Supreme Court? It was the prosecution? The state, yeah, the prosecution. Yeah, okay, yeah. They're like, are we really going get this guy? You vexed us for the last time.
00:52:19
Speaker
um Yeah, I think we're ready to issue our ruling.
00:52:25
Speaker
Hit us. I think WB goes free to rob a gas station another day, or at the very least, loiter and and get ripped with his friends, which feels nice.
00:52:36
Speaker
Or get tried again, I guess. you get Gets to go back to court. Yeah. Yeah, you you go you go to the service station of your choice, WB, and you get it some mad dog and you hang out with your pals. Just don't rob the place.
00:52:52
Speaker
We're keeping an eye on you, buster. That's my ruling. When we're talking about kidnapping and armed robbery and felonious assault, I expect the police to be able to prove that perfectly.
00:53:04
Speaker
Because that's that's someone's life. And we're throwing away this poor man's life. Especially if there's a kidnapping. If there's a kidnapping, it's like someone was kidnapped, right? And you should be able to find that person.
00:53:17
Speaker
And if they're not alive anymore. The kidnapper should be saved to say, it was that guy. but Right. Exactly. That should be pretty cut and dry. And if the kidnapped person is not alive anymore, that's murder.
00:53:27
Speaker
That's a whole other ballgame. Then you got a corpse, more material evidence. That's all I'm saying. Very flimsy case. Go get wrecked, cops. You better. i agree with the chief justice.
00:53:40
Speaker
Chief justice thrown down the law. Enjoy that, cops. ah Justice Mike, any any additional statements on the matter?
00:53:52
Speaker
no I agree. I think it's it needs to be explicitly obtained that you are waiving the rights or at least understand them. And I don't Originally, I thought that that was pretty clear in this case that they were understood, but I'm not so sure about that now.
00:54:09
Speaker
All right. We have a unanimous decision for the respondent for WB. All right. Wow. Now, but you guys saying go free, you guys agreeing with the North Carolina Supreme Court that he ah to order a new trial.
00:54:27
Speaker
That new trial. and dry Yeah. The go free was a spiritual message. ah OK. Yeah. Right. Yeah. So my my takeaway was that, ah let's see, from the Adam court, WB statements are excluded. He must be retried. The police should do better.
Real Supreme Court Decision and Dissent
00:54:42
Speaker
Yeah. Do better cops is really bold. That part, please, if you have formatting options. Yeah.
00:54:48
Speaker
Print it on a t-shirt and distribute. Also quote me there as well. Also tattooed on my person. Yep. Running out of space, buddy. It's got a lot boy lot of pithy phrases on your body.
00:55:02
Speaker
Just like anything novel. If the robbery does not fit, you must acquit. Put that there too. Literally any novel thing you hear, you just get tattooed on yourself and it's it's both off-putting and very charming.
00:55:14
Speaker
Uh...
00:55:20
Speaker
Well, right we did it justice, guys. Yeah. Great job. I suppose now you'd like to know what actually happened. Would love that. No, no, actually not interested. He went on to murder again. you i suppose now you know what you're you you know in your bones what really happened. Yeah. Yeah.
00:55:38
Speaker
Well, that's how been. It's been a great show. I just got a lot of aggression against law enforcement to work out. Yeah. To be fair, okay, so the last one that three of us did, it was like very clear cut that the cops did the right thing. like this so We rode this.
00:55:54
Speaker
Yeah. So my my favorite part of all these is is guessing. What year was it? I'm going to guess this was late 80s. think it's 2035. 2017.
00:56:04
Speaker
thirty five
00:56:09
Speaker
Uh, no, it was, uh, 1979 was when the cases argued and decided. Um, and then just for reference, Miranda was, I think it was 1966. Let me double check. and That makes a lot of sense. A bunch of guys loitering in a gas station and just literally deciding spontaneously to murder the clerk would probably be caught on video any time later than that.
00:56:32
Speaker
Miranda was 66. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. um And this was 5-3 decision. And the majority opinion starts out um ah like the first, the opening sentence talks about how the North Carolina Supreme Court's decision was, quote, in evident conflict with the present view of every other court that is considered the issue. Wow. Oh, all right. Wait, that's the first sentence, so that, but? That's a polite way to say that.
00:57:06
Speaker
But? The shade of... Got busy right a away. Yeah. Yeah. That was, I literally wrote that in my notes. I'm like shade. And then I read the following sentences and I was like shade. Okay.
00:57:19
Speaker
um It does. It did not get better.
00:57:23
Speaker
Yeah. So liberals on the checks notes, North Carolina, Supreme court. Yeah.
00:57:33
Speaker
So, yeah, they were like, the Supreme Court was totally wrong in how it interpreted Miranda. um And, you know, they were saying like, yeah, you know, when they said heavy burden on the government to prove that the guy knowingly and intelligent waived his rights and an express statement, um they were like, we didn't say that an express statement is indispensable to a finding of a waiver.
00:57:59
Speaker
Um, so, you know, an express written statement, oral statement, that's certainly strong proof the defendant waived, but it's not necessary or sufficient to establish waiver.
00:58:10
Speaker
Um, so really you have to look at whether the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived the rights. So like silence plus an understanding of rights, plus, uh, they call it a course of conduct indicating a waiver.
00:58:26
Speaker
could be a waiver of rights. So actually um Graham's initial sort of take on the guy's behavior, that's kind of what they were thinking.
00:58:37
Speaker
if they say sign this and you're like, hell no, I'm not going to sign this thing that I clearly understand. That's a no. That's the inverse of signing it. Yeah. So basically they were like, Miranda says that you just need to make sure that the suspect is informed of his rights when interrogated.
00:58:52
Speaker
North Carolina, the Supreme Court there, they're doing too much. um It's clear that he was- I'll back the justice guys. Yeah. Thank you now, boys. Yeah.
00:59:05
Speaker
So, ah you know, there's no reason to think that he didn't um understand the righteous because, you know, he didn't, he wasn't waiving the righteous because he wasn't explicitly saying that he was.
00:59:17
Speaker
um So the court's like, you have to look at the ah quote, particular facts and circumstances surrounding that case, including the background experience and conduct of the accused.
00:59:29
Speaker
So we don't need to replace that with an inflexible rule. um They also talk about how 10 out of the 11 US courts of appeals and at least 17 state courts have held that an explicit statement of waiver um is not required.
00:59:46
Speaker
So they're like North Carolina Supreme Court has, quote, gone beyond the requirements of federal organic law. So North Carolina lost the popularity contest.
00:59:58
Speaker
All right. So, uh, to, uh, to let us all know that you understand your wave, your rights, please write a short little limerick expressing that you understand that your rights are waived and then we'll begin viciously beating the souls of your feats with a read.
01:00:11
Speaker
Just hand the guy a flag with the, with the word rights on it. And you can just like, Oh yeah. Please perform a 30 second interpretive dance with this flag to let us know that you have waved. In fact, your rights.
01:00:24
Speaker
i would I would very much like a coffee table book of ah waiver haikus.
01:00:33
Speaker
We'll get right on that. It'll be first piece of licensed merchandise. so But it was really like the descent was actually, you know, a lot of what you guys were saying kind of came up. At the very end of the one was just like...
01:00:46
Speaker
If the agent, quote, simply elicited a clear answer from WB to the question, do you waive your right to a lawyer? This journey through three courts would not have been necessary. So that was how the dissent ended. They're like, cops, if you'd like just done a little bit more, um you know, we wouldn't have to do all this. ah But yeah. But we're totally on your side anyway. Yeah.
01:01:13
Speaker
Well, that was the dissenting opinion. The dissent was like, yeah, they were like, you know, we the the court was the supreme supreme the North Carolina court was correct to grant a new trial. There was no written or oral waiving of rights.
01:01:28
Speaker
um You know, the the the Supreme Court talking about inferences from actions in words basically means that you can construct things from... ambiguous words and gestures.
01:01:41
Speaker
um And they're like, premise the premise of Miranda says that if there's any ambiguity, you interpret it against the interrogator because custodial interrogation, it comes with this inherent compulsion. you know It's supposed to be subjugating the person's will. you know um So if you just have a simple rule that requires police to get an express waiver before moving forward with the interrogation,
01:02:06
Speaker
then we don't we don't need to do all this interpretation and ambiguity and error. And they were like, this case shows why we need an express waiver requirement.
01:02:17
Speaker
Yeah. me Got Yeah. Oh, keep going. Well, I was going to launch into some so what stuff, but not if you still have stuff to go through.
01:02:33
Speaker
um So, yeah, there was some discussion ah because basically, according to legal scholars, this case sets up this notion of an implicit waiver of one's rights. So one can implicitly waive one's rights without doing some sort of express exact statement or written waiver.
01:02:51
Speaker
And although the ruling was basically saying like only in some cases, it's not all the time that you can just interpret things. It's only in some cases where things are very clear.
Reflections on Miranda Rights and Legal Procedures
01:03:02
Speaker
There is some psychological literature that weighs in on this that that's very interesting. There was one study by Rogers and colleagues in 2010 where it was like, yeah, everybody says that they know their Miranda rights, but like we did a survey of people in jail and of college students.
01:03:19
Speaker
And there were some you know like chunks of people, like around 30-something percent, didn't actually have like a full understanding the way that people thought they did. And this was independent of whether they had the you know hard knock school experience or the formal experience education and training.
01:03:40
Speaker
And then Melton and colleagues also summarize psychological research showing that, you know, once again, people don't understand the Miranda rights as well as they think they do. A lot of adults, I think Tom Grisso conducted research demonstrating that something like 23% of adults don't understand at least one of their Miranda rights.
01:03:59
Speaker
There's also, you know, depending on police interrogation techniques and the circumstances of questioning and certain vulnerabilities in people, such as mental illnesses or youth, minors under the age of 15 totally don't understand their rights.
01:04:16
Speaker
Reading comprehension, and there have been some studies comparing the Miranda rights warning with average levels of reading comprehension, you know, So there's there's reasons to kind of think about this and and be concerned about how well do people in general know their Miranda rights.
01:04:35
Speaker
Yeah, most people are pretty ignorant.
01:04:39
Speaker
how How well do the people on this call know their Miranda rights? Well, haven't been arrested recently.
01:04:48
Speaker
ah So a couple of takeaways. This was a good refresher,
01:04:54
Speaker
Yeah, just don't sign the paper and you can get away with anything. So first first thought is, so we said Miranda was 66. This case was 79, right? So it's 13 years between those cases.
01:05:09
Speaker
I think the court in 66 was very different from the court in 79. That was a question I had is, what was the justice overlap? but Yeah, exactly. and And I probably should have done more research on this, but it kind of only just hit me as I was as we were going through this.
01:05:26
Speaker
And I started looking at the dates, but my My gut tells me, and any actual lawyers who are listening can go ahead and hit us up on Instagram or Blue Sky or whatever your social media of choice is what we have chosen to facebook to implement ourselves.
01:05:43
Speaker
but if So if you want to yell at us or send us you know letters or come on the show and explain this in greater detail, that would be great. But my gut tells me that... Please help. Yeah, please, please.
01:05:54
Speaker
Thanking you. ah My gut tells me that the... ah the The court in 66, which was the Marshall Court.
01:06:07
Speaker
um No, it was the 60s. Oh, wait, I'm looking at the wrong one. Okay, sorry. like Miranda was Marshall, who Chief Justice Marshall. No, Miranda was ah was the Warren Court. Or Warren, sorry. So I think the the Warren Court was looking at a landscape where There was like no assertion of rights ah in the process and they needed to remedy that. And Miranda was the case where they remedied that.
01:06:36
Speaker
And from that point, that was probably the high point of, you know, the the rights that the the court was saying or the restrictions that the court was putting on law enforcement in order to protect the Fifth Amendment.
01:06:52
Speaker
And cases like Butler here are the future courts wrestling with walking some of that back. Right. The Miranda was a great expansion of Fifth Amendment protection.
01:07:08
Speaker
And a case like Butler is a contraction of that, because if any court could have looked at it, could have looked at Miranda and said, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. This is like knowingly and intelligently, like we we need to be absolutely sure of this.
01:07:25
Speaker
If that was what they understood it, and that's how the North Carolina Supreme Court did understand it, and then it gets back to the Supreme court, this report saying like, no, no, we're going to contract the definition.
01:07:37
Speaker
We're going to contract the ruling a little bit. This is not the only case like this. And I won't go into any more detail about it because we may do other cases like this case ah in order to compare and contrast.
01:07:49
Speaker
boyers's it There is a, I think that is for me sort of the theme. I had the same sort of back and forth that the justices did when I was reading the case. Cause it's like, it's like,
01:08:02
Speaker
Shut up, man. Yeah. Just never talk to the cops. That's like, come on. Just shut up. Yeah. But, uh, but at the same time, like, you know, uh, this is a thing I learned long ago in the corporate world as a manager. Like when you give somebody a task, you never ask them, like, do you understand?
01:08:21
Speaker
Because the answer to that question is always yes. Because nobody wants to admit that they don't understand. So it's it's a terrible question to ask. The better question is explain it back to me.
01:08:33
Speaker
right But this is not what the police... do, right? And it's not what they're trained to do. you know so like It's not what they're there for. It's not what they're there for, right? ah And so like part of me was like, and I've said this to Nikki before as we've been talking about cases, is like, but I have a problem with Miranda or the Miranda rights generally.
01:08:54
Speaker
And it's it's not that they exist. It's that the cops say this met these magic words and then and then they're free and clear from that point out.
01:09:05
Speaker
Mm-hmm. It should be, to me, ah now I'm just getting into my personal opinions here, but ah the government has all of the resources.
01:09:16
Speaker
Make the government prove it. Make the government like we can study this. We could figure out some implement in order to like we do this for mental health all the time. We have people whose jobs literally is to assess competency to stand trial. Do they really understand law? And to waive their Miranda rights. That's also a thing that gets us assessed. yeah Exactly. Yeah.
01:09:39
Speaker
So to me, you know, as I was reading this, that was kind of my first opinion. where I was just like, well, first opinion was like, dude, shut up. ah And then secondarily, it's just like, it's just like try to put myself in the position where like, I think about this stuff a lot, but if the cops showed up at my house and took me away and I was just trying to get home or like, again, it's, it's similar to like prosecutorial discretion, right?
01:10:03
Speaker
It's the um enormous amount of energy that the government can bring to bear on you, uh, to completely upset your life. ah Maybe it's worth saying, like, yeah, make their job a little tougher. Make makeke law enforcement a higher paid, more skilled job, maybe. Right. Like, I don't think that that's a bad thing for society. So um I could go i kind of went either way on this case myself.
01:10:30
Speaker
A couple things to add. I was kind of informally looking at the composition of the court. um So in the original um Miranda case, Justice Brennan was on the court. I think was the only one um who was on both Miranda and in Butler.
01:10:47
Speaker
And um what I will say was that he was pretty consistent the whole time. So he was part of the dissent and Butler being like, what the fuck, guys? Yeah. Like Miranda promise, you know, is trying to protect rights. And like, you know, if the cops had just gone the extra step.
01:11:05
Speaker
um If there's any message for the listener, I think would be just don't talk to the cops. Do not talk to the cops. But we're we're not lawyers also. We can't give legal advice. But as friends, just good life advice. Shut Shut up.
01:11:20
Speaker
be quiet yeah Even if you didn't do anything, shush. They'll figure out some way to to make it so you have. Just a general rule of thumb in life. Just say less.
01:11:31
Speaker
Yeah. So two two important pieces of life advice I've gotten from this. One, don't talk to the cops and never sign anything.
01:11:42
Speaker
Yeah. Yeah. That's the first two steps of sovereign citizen stuff. Yep. Oh, wait Oh, God. Oh, no.
01:11:55
Speaker
what do you What do you mean I was driving? I was traveling. Oh, God. There's no fringe on this flag. Officer, you weren't wearing your hat. You're out of uniform.
01:12:10
Speaker
I've heard that one from non-sovereign citizens. Really? Wait, that they're what does that have to do with anything? I don't know. Lawyers of the internet, you know, of podcast land, let us know.
01:12:25
Speaker
that Is there anything there? if they If the state trooper shows up without... that wide brimmed hat or they had uniform and therefore not capable of dispatching their duties. If, if they're wrestling me to the ground and I knock their hat off, are they no longer law enforcement? If they walk up to your car and they're like, sir, you know how fast. And then like a gust of wind, you have to go like, forget it. And then just walk back to the car. Like, yeah, I'm relation to the spin of the earth or the galactic arm of the galaxy.
01:12:56
Speaker
I'm moving at 7,000 miles per hour.
01:13:00
Speaker
Yeah. Relative to which fixed point in space, ah sir or madam?
01:13:07
Speaker
You had to say sir or madam, no matter who's in front of you. just like i want
01:13:13
Speaker
Just part of sovereign citizen stuff, man. You wouldn't understand. And I don't.
01:13:21
Speaker
Nicky, I think you got to take us out of this one. ah or just gonna joe Just hard Yeah, just like, hey, thanks, GTFO. yeah what's What's the podcast equivalent of a cut to black?
01:13:34
Speaker
Yeah. so ah So there we have it. ah The Adam court has decided that the cops should do better. i think that was the takeaway.
Episode Conclusion and Listener Engagement
01:13:45
Speaker
Yes.
01:13:46
Speaker
And I think this group of friends is also saying, as friends, not lawyers, we're not lawyers, ah don't talk to the cops and don't sign anything. Ever.
01:13:58
Speaker
Ever. as your As your internet lawyer, all of you listening, I advise you to never sign anything. No, no, no, no, no. no no no no He's not saying that as a lawyer. He's saying it as a justice.
01:14:18
Speaker
Oh, no, no, no. I'm a sovereign citizen. No, no, no. powdered wig has gone to his head. What have we done?
01:14:29
Speaker
You're all fired except Graham. Thank you. It's the talc. Once again, what did I do?
01:14:37
Speaker
It's not what you did. It's what you're planning. Okay. That's gotta be another court case.
01:14:47
Speaker
ah All right. Thanks everybody. Thanks for being here. Thanks for listening. Thanks for having us. We'll catch you in the next one. Bye.
01:15:01
Speaker
And there you have it, a unanimous decision in favor of WB. That's it for this episode. But before we go, thanks again to my co-host and to our justices.
01:15:12
Speaker
The music in this episode was written by Studio Columna and Toby Smith and provided by Pixabay. Audio mixing and producing was done by Jarrett. Research was done by me.
01:15:24
Speaker
Thanks for listening. Please subscribe, rate, and comment so other people can find us. For complete episode information, including references, please check out our website at relitigated.com.
01:15:38
Speaker
You can also catch us on YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, Threads, and Blue Sky. Please help us spread the word. All right. Until next time, I'm Nikki, and this has been Relitigated.
01:15:50
Speaker
Bye.