A
Real World Case Study: Homicide by David Simon
In
this activity, you will consider one of the main points of
Chief Justice Warren's decision in Miranda and how
it relates to real-life police work as depicted in David Simon's
book about Baltimore Police Department homicide detectives.
You will examine passages and answer questions in small groups.
Finally, you will write a short essay in response to the prompt
at the end of this activity.
In
his majority opinion in Miranda v. Arizona,
Chief Justice Warren writes that one of the main purposes
of the Miranda warnings is "to make the individual
more acutely aware that he is faced with a phase of the
adversary system-that he is not in the presence of persons
acting solely in his interest." He also disapprovingly
cites passages from police interrogation manuals that instruct
police to "persuade, trick, or cajole" suspects.
Chief Justice Warren writes:
| "any
evidence that the accused was threatened, tricked,
or cajoled into a waiver will, of course, show that
the defendant did not voluntarily waive his privilege.
The requirement of warnings and waiver of rights is
a fundamental . . . and not simply a preliminary ritual
to existing methods of interrogation." |
Questions to Consider:
- Why
is it important that an accused person be aware that he
or she is "faced with a phase of the adversary system", that
is, that the police are not on his or her side?
- Should
the police be allowed to "persuade, trick, or cajole"
people suspected of committing crimes in order to get
them to confess?
-
What is Chief Justice Warren's goal in trying to ensure
that defendants voluntarily waive their privilege before
being questioned?
- Have
you seen-either in real life, on television or in a movie-an
instance of police interrogation that you think violates
the standard set by Chief Justice Warren in his opinion?
If so, describe it.
In
1991 David Simon, a Baltimore Sun reporter, wrote a book about
the Baltimore Police Department's homicide squad. The book,
Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets, was later
adapted for television.
Simon
describes in his book how Baltimore homicide detectives
deal with the requirements of the Miranda decision.
He writes that before a suspect is asked whether he wants
to waive his rights and talk about his case, the detective
offers him a chance to tell his side of the story, warning
that asserting his rights will only make things worse:
| "Once
you up and call for that lawyer, son, we can't do
a damn thing for you. . . . [T]he next authority figure
to scan your case will be a tie-wearing, three-piece
bloodsucker - a no-nonsense prosecutor from the Violent
Crimes Unit . . . And God help you then, son . . .
. Now's the time to speak up . . . because once I
walk out of this room any chance you have of telling
your side of the story is gone and I gotta write it
up the way it looks. . . . And it looks right now
[like] first- . . . degree murder." |
Simon concludes
that "the fraud that claims it is somehow in a suspect's
interest to talk with police will forever be the catalyst
in any criminal interrogation." He says detectives try
to get suspects to speak by offering them "the Out."
Suspects must be "baited by detectives with something
more tempting than penitence. They must be made to believe
that their crime is not really murder, that their excuse is
both accepted and unique, that they will, with the help of
the detective, be judged less evil than they truly are."
The goal is to get the suspect to believe the detective is
on his side and will help him, when in fact the detective
is trying to get the suspect to confess.
Simons,
David. Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets. New
York: Ballantine Books, 1991.
Questions
to Consider:
- Do
the actions of Baltimore homicide detectives, as described
by David Simon, seem to be in compliance with Chief Justice
Warren's opinion in Miranda? Why or why not?
- Do
you think it is fair for police officers to deceive or
trick suspects in custody? Why or why not? If you do not
think it is fair, can you think of circumstances when
you think it would be fair?
- How
would strict compliance with Miranda change homicide
interrogations as depicted in David Simon's book?
- How
would strict compliance with Miranda protect individual
rights in homicide interrogations as depicted in David
Simon's book?
Short Essay
Respond
to the following statement in at least three paragraphs.
Use what you have learned about the Miranda case
as evidence to support your thesis, either agreeing or disagreeing
with the statement.
| "The
Supreme Court's decision in Miranda restricts
the ability of the police to fight crime. Police officers
are on the front lines in the fight against crime,
and they should be allowed to interrogate suspects
as they best see fit. Society's right to public safety
is more important than the rights of criminals." |
|
