917
Lectures Watched
Since January 1, 2014
Hundreds of free, self-paced university courses available:
my recommendations here
Peruse my collection of 275
influential people of the past.
View My Class Notes via:
Receive My Class Notes via E-Mail:

VIEW ARCHIVE


Contact Me via E-Mail:
edward [at] tanguay.info
Notes on video lecture:
The Fifth Amendment and the Miranda Warning
Choose from these words to fill the blanks below:
chance, available, Restoration, trial, lawyer, rich, emotional, know, manufacture, already, require, overrule, unpopular, create, Warren, circumstantial, guilty, aggressive, interrogated, physical, confessed, Fourth, good, Arizona, lose, compelled, interrogation, Nixon, requires, false, violated, Miranda, mind, narrowed, convicted, 1960s, Dickerson, coerced
Ernesto                didn't know he had a right to remain silent
Miranda was arrested based on                              evidence linking him to a rape
circumstantial evidence
evidence that is not based on direct observation or                  evidence
the police                          him for two hours without telling him he didn't have to answer their questions
in the end, he                   
this confession was used as evidence against him in court
he was                   
his rights were                 
the Fifth Amendment says that no person shall be                    in any criminal case to be a witness against himself
this means that the police can't force a confession out of you and then use it at your           
in the           , police didn't routinely video tape interrogations
a judge may be able to figure what a defendant had said or how long he had been interrogated, but it would be hard to figure out what his state of          was
it would be hard to tell if a confession had been               
or if there was unduly psychological pressure on a suspect during                           
e.g. police say they know he did it and this is his one              to tell his side of the story
if you tell someone he has a right to remain silent, if he talks afterwards, you can be pretty sure he is doing so voluntarily
the Miranda warning makes sure:
confessions aren't coerced
judges can tell they haven't been coerced
what the Miranda warning doesn't do:
it doesn't              the right to remain silent, the Fifth Amendment does that
it doesn't create the right to have a             , that's in the sixth Amendment
Miranda                  police to tell you
if they don't, then they can't later use anything they say against you
Miranda's confession was excluded but he was convicted anyway
is Miranda a          decision?
in favor of Miranda
it is good for people to          their Constitutional rights
against Miranda
the exclusionary rule generally only protects the              and benefits the innocent only indirectly
in one sense, Miranda protects the guilty, as the innocent have nothing to hide
they don't          anything by talking to police
but that's not necessarily true
people do make            confessions
this is something that doesn't happen with the              Amendment
people don't                        false evidence and put it in their houses
so it does actually benefit people who might get pushed into a false confession at an                    moment, etc.
the Miranda warnings themselves are not in the Constitution
where do judges get the power to                them?
Miranda is an example of the Supreme Court being quite                      in managing law enforcement
originally                   
some called for impeachment of Chief Justice Earl Warren
a response to that court's decision regarding race, e.g. Brown v Board of Education (1954)
Richard            campaigned against Miranda
as President appointed justices that he thought would                  it
over the years, it was                  down, exceptions were created
but the decision itself was never overturned
congress passed a law to overrule Miranda just as they did to overrule the Religious Freedom                        Act
to tell the court to forget the Miranda decision and just tell if the confession was voluntary
in 1999 the court ordered them to and then went to decide that the law was valid
Congress could overrule Miranda because Miranda wasn't based on the Constitution
Supreme Court reviewed this in a case called                   
(2000), upheld the requirement that the Miranda warning be read to criminal suspects and struck down a federal statute that purported to overrule Miranda v.               .
there were not five justices who would overrule Miranda, but might have been five who would go along with congress when it tried to change the rule
it turned out a resounding no: 7-2
Miranda doesn't create new rights
it just makes sure people know their rights
makes sure those rights are                    to everyone
therefore it is based on equality
one of the themes of the              court
"Constitutional laws aren't just for white people, they aren't just for men, or just for the         "
Miranda says: rights aren't just for those who know about them               

Spelling Corrections:

defendentdefendant
agressiveaggressive

Ideas and Concepts:

Novel by Kermit Roosevelt III: "A sophisticated legal thriller that plunges readers into the debate within the US government surrounding the imprisonment of thousands of Japanese-Americans during World War II. When the news broke about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Caswell "Cash" Harrison was all set to drop out of law school and join the army, until he flunked the physical. Instead, he's given the opportunity to serve as a clerk to Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black. He and another clerk stumble onto a potentially huge conspiracy aimed at guiding the court's interests, and the cases dealing with the constitutionality of the prison camps created to detain Japanese-Americans seem to play a key part. Then Cash's colleague dies under mysterious circumstances, and the young, idealistic lawyer is determined to get at the truth. His investigation will take him from the office of J. Edgar Hoover to an internment camp in California, where he directly confronts the consequences of America's wartime policies. Kermit Roosevelt combines the momentum of a top-notch legal thriller with a thoughtful examination of one of the worst civil rights violations in U.S. history in this long-awaited follow-up to In the Shadow of the Law."
Why We Needed a Constitution
Creating the Constitution
Structural, Backward-Looking, and Forward-Looking Provisions
Article I: The Legislative Branch
Article II: The Executive Branch
Article III: The Judicial Branch
The Bill of Rights
The Progressive Amendments: 16, 17, 18, and 19
Freedom of Speech
The Supreme Court and the Free Exercise of Religion Clause
The Establishment Clause
The Fourth Amendment: Protection from Unreasonable Search and Seizure
The Fifth Amendment and the Miranda Warning
The Sixth Amendment