CREATORS: Landmark Decision of Miranda v. Arizona Turns 60

Matthew T. Mangino
CREATORS
June 2, 2026

Sixty years ago this month, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Miranda v. Arizona that police officers are required to inform a suspect that he has the right to remain silent and the right to legal counsel when being questioned.

During the court argument, Justice Potter Stewart asked Attorney John J. Flynn, representing Ernesto Miranda, what rights an accused should be advised of while in custody. Flynn replied, "(H)e had a right not to incriminate himself, that he had the right not to make any statement, that he had a right to be free from further questioning ... to be represented adequately by counsel in court, that if he was too indigent and poor to employ counsel, that the state would furnish him counsel."

Everyone with a television or iPad has heard the words of Attorney Flynn. As I and many others have noted, the landmark Supreme Court decision has become a part of American culture. Miranda's conversion from legal holding to cultural icon is due mainly to the nation's insatiable appetite for crime dramas.

What did Miranda do to earn his place in the American consciousness? In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested for robbery. While in the midst of a custodial interrogation by police, he confessed to raping an 18-year-old woman. At trial, prosecutors offered his confession into evidence. Miranda was convicted of rape and sentenced to prison. He appealed and his case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Miranda and excluded his confession. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote the court's opinion, holding that a confession would be barred under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments unless a suspect had been made aware of his rights and had waived them. Warren made it clear, "If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time before or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease ... If the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present."

As we mark the sixtieth anniversary of Miranda, it is important to note that the U.S. Supreme Court has continually tested, and at times expanded and restricted, the decision.

For instance, in 1981, the Edwards rule was established. The Court held that once an accused invoked his right to have counsel present during custodial interrogation, a valid waiver of that right could not be later established. The rule created a presumption that once a suspect invoked his right to the presence of counsel pursuant to Miranda, any waiver of that right in response to a subsequent police attempt at custodial interrogation was involuntary.

That changed in 2010. In a case out of Maryland, the Court established a bright-line rule, finding that if at least 14 days passed from the time the suspect invoked his rights under Miranda, the police could again initiate an interrogation of the suspect.

In 2013, in a case out of Texas, a murder suspect who answered questions for almost an hour was then asked by police if the shotgun shells found at the murder scene would match a shotgun found in his home. The suspect stopped talking.

The police made notes of his conduct once he stopped talking. According to the Supreme Court, the suspect "(l)ooked down at the floor, shuffled his feet, bit his bottom lip, cl(e)nched his hands in his lap, (and) began to tighten up."

That conduct was used at his trial as evidence that he was hiding his guilt. The Supreme Court found that silence was not enough to invoke the right to remain silent.

Then in 2022, the high Court ruled that a violation of Miranda rules does not provide grounds for an individual to sue police officers for money damages for violating a suspect's civil rights under federal law.

Although revered as a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, the scope and breadth of Miranda has been somewhat diminished.

Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C. His book, "The Executioner's Toll," 2010, was released by McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter @MatthewTMangino

To visit Creators CLICK HERE

DOJ goes after SPLC despite IRS clearing group of wrong doing

 Federal agents previously investigated the Southern Poverty Law Center's paid informant program for possible tax crimes, but the probe failed to yield any charges after Internal Revenue Service lawyers determined it was legally structured, sources familiar with the matter told CBS News.

Agents from IRS Criminal Investigation in 2019 and 2020 homed in on shell bank accounts that a former chief financial officer at the civil rights nonprofit opened to pay informants in exchange for intelligence about hate groups. The agents sought to determine whether the SPLC unlawfully failed to file tax returns for those payments, sources said.

But a Treasury Department rule exempts 501(c)(3) nonprofits from filing tax returns in connection with payments to informants who provide information about potential criminal activity. As a result, IRS lawyers later cautioned against seeking an indictment on tax charges, several of the sources said.

A spokesperson for IRS Criminal Investigation declined to comment. A spokesperson for the Justice Department declined to comment beyond its filings in the criminal case.

The tax portion of the investigation, which has not been previously reported, was initiated during President Trump's first term as an expansion of an FBI probe into whether that same former chief financial officer may have embezzled money from the SPLC, the sources said.

The Justice Department in April obtained an 11-count wire and bank fraud indictment against the SPLC over the center's informant program, alleging it defrauded its donors and duped its banks by creating shell accounts to funnel money to insiders who belonged to the same hate groups it pledged to dismantle.

The group denies wrongdoing and has pleaded not guilty.

To read more CLICK HERE

Federal prosecutor who brought 'Comey 8647' off the case

A rookie federal prosecutor who brought a case accusing former FBI Director James Comey of threatening President Donald Trump’s life by posting a photo of seashells on Instagram has stepped off the case, reported NBC News.

Matthew Petracca, who had been recently hired as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of North Carolina, is no longer on the Comey case, according to a court filing.

Petracca also dropped off of other criminal cases in the Eastern District of North Carolina in recent days, according to court filings. Petracca is a former Republican county committeeman in New Jersey whom W. Ellis Boyle, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina, hired months ago, NBC News has reported. Boyle oversaw the highly criticized case, which will go to trial in October if it manages to survive legal challenges.

Petracca had contemplated leaving the Justice Department altogether, according to two people familiar with the matter, but instead remained a Justice Department employee after taking a week off. Petracca had not responded to a previous request for comment on his status at the Justice Department and did not respond to an additional request for comment Friday. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of North Carolina did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Timothy Severo is now heading the Comey case. Petracca did not handle a recent interaction with Comey’s defense team, which instead communicated with First Assistant U.S. Attorney Phil Aubart.

A two-count indictment was brought late last month and suggested that a reasonable person would interpret the image of the shells, arranged to spell out “86 47,” as “a serious expression of an intent to do harm to the President of the United States.”

To read more CLICK HERE

Mangino discusses Joseph Duggar charges with Jesse Weber on Law & Crime's Sidebar

Watch my interview on Sidebar with Law & Crime's Jesse Weber as we examine the criminal charges against Joseph Duggar,

To watch the interview CLICK HERE

Pennsylvania inmates serving LWOP for 2nd degree murder face uphill battle to gain release

While 19 states, including New York and California, allow the governor unilateral clemency power, Pennsylvania is among 10 states that require the approval of its pardon board. Without the board’s recommendation, the governor is barred from commuting a person’s sentence, reported The Appeal. Three members—a victim advocate, a corrections expert, and a medical or mental health expert—are nominated by the governor and approved by the state senate. The lieutenant governor and attorney general comprise the other two members.

Acknowledgment of an application can take up to 18 months. Only then does an applicant undergo an institutional review, including a psychological review as well as an interview with the prison superintendent. Former DOC secretary John Wetzel instituted the policy of interviewing applicants. His successors have continued the practice.  

Then the process continues to a merit review. In 2026, the board scheduled three merit reviews for commutations. At each review, the board votes on hundreds of applications, reviewing the person’s institutional record, program participation, staff support, their personal statement, future plans, and letters supporting or opposing their release. For applicants serving life without parole, three of the five members must approve before they can proceed to a public hearing.

Before the public hearing, board members interview the applicant over Zoom. Each interview lasts no longer than 30 minutes. At the hearing, which is also virtual, family members of their victims as well as the applicant’s loved ones have the opportunity to testify.

Until the 1990s, an applicant needed a majority vote for commutation. Then, in 1994, however, Reginald McFadden, who had been granted commutation two years earlier, killed two people and raped a third. Recidivism among clemency recipients for any offense is extremely low. Nonetheless, his acts prompted widespread fears of second chances and a 1997 legislative change requiring a unanimous vote for all commutations. Between 1967 and 1994, over 360 life sentences had been commuted. 

Since 1995, the board has reviewed 190 applicants serving life without parole. Of those, 80 (or fewer than half) were recommended to the governor. Seventy-eight have been granted commutation. 

Celeste Trusty, now the state legislative affairs director for FAMM, served as secretary for the Pennsylvania Board of Pardons during previous governor Tom Wolf’s last year in office (December 2020 to January 2022). “It really does matter who’s in office, who’s on the board, what the public sentiment is about commutation [and] the political ambitions of the people involved in the process,” she told The Appeal. She noted that, because Wolf had no plans to run for higher office, “the political liability that people generally associate with second chances and clemency was removed, and he was able to boldly go forward.”

During Wolf’s two terms as governor, the board held 114 hearings for lifers and recommended 55. Wolf granted commutation to all of them.

As attorney general, Shapiro was a member of the pardon board. In 2019, he cast the fewest votes for commutation. Since becoming governor in 2023, the board has conducted 46 hearings for lifers and recommended 15 people. Shapiro granted commutation to all 15. (During his first term, Wolf granted commutation to 19 people, more than his past four predecessors combined.)

Bolden initially applied at his mother’s urging. The board denied his first two applications. 

Since then, he has developed multiple sclerosis, which has progressed to the point where he requires a wheelchair. It also greatly limits the use of his left hand and causes constant pain. 

This past March, Bolden learned that he received support from the Department of Corrections Secretary Laurel Harry. His merit review is scheduled for July 9. If approved, his public hearing will be on September 11. 

“Little by little, I’m starting to have more hope,” he said. Decades behind bars, including four years with execution hanging over his head, made it impossible to envision a life beyond the prison door. 

“The gravity and weight of prison is so hard to put into words,” he said. 

To read more CLICK HERE

SCOTUS grants new trial to condemned man who spent 20 years on death row

The question in the case was whether defendant's lawyer had a meaningful chance to challenge the prosecutor’s stated reasons for striking Black jurors

A divided Supreme Court sided with a Black death row inmate from Mississippi who accused the white prosecutor in his case of intentionally and illegally striking potential Black jurors from the panel that heard his case, reported The New York Times.

Terry Pitchford was convicted in 2006 for his role in the murder of a shopkeeper by a 12-member jury that included only one Black member. At the time, the county where his trial took place was 40 percent Black.

In its 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court said Mr. Pitchford’s lawyer should have had an opportunity to challenge the prosecutor’s reasons for striking all but one potential Black juror, consistent with a 40-year-old landmark precedent barring race discrimination in jury selection. The decision means that Mr. Pitchford, 40, who has served on death row for more than two decades, is entitled to a new trial, his attorney said.

The dispute in Mr. Pitchford’s case involved the same prosecutor whose jury-selection practices were condemned by the Supreme Court in a separate decision in 2019 that drew considerable public attention.

In that case, the prosecutor Doug Evans spent decades trying to convict Curtis Flowers, a Black man, of the 1996 murders of four people inside a furniture store. During six trials, Mr. Evans repeatedly ensured Black people were excluded from juries. The case was featured on a season-long podcast, as well as in episodes of a documentary series. Mr. Flowers spent 23 years in prison until he was released in 2019 following the court’s decision. Charges against him were dropped the following year.

The question in Mr. Pitchford’s case was whether his lawyer had a meaningful chance to challenge the prosecutor’s stated reasons for striking Black jurors.

Sign up for the Race/Related Newsletter  Join a deep and provocative exploration of race, identity and society with New York Times journalists. Get it sent to your inbox.

In general, prosecutors have leeway to remove a certain number of potential jurors, by issuing challenges that are discretionary and cannot be second-guessed. Forty years ago, the Supreme Court carved out an exception in the case Batson v. Kentucky. Under that ruling, when lawyers are accused of discriminating based on race in jury selection, they must provide a different, race-neutral explanation for their actions.

In recent years, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority has turned away most appeals from death row inmates. But writing for the majority, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh said the state judge had failed to provide Mr. Pitchford’s lawyer “sufficient opportunity” to dispute the prosecutor’s race-neutral reasons for striking four of five potential Black jurors, and had failed to explore if the prosecutor’s reasons were “pretextual.”

Justice Kavanaugh, who wrote the court’s 2019 decision in Mr. Flowers’s case as well, has had a longstanding interest in race and jury selection. He was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and the court’s three liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Joseph Perkovich, one of Mr. Pitchford’s lawyers, praised the court for recognizing the “extreme failure of the state courts to enforce essential protections under the Constitution.”

In a statement, Megan Byrne, a lawyer at the ACLU’s Capital Punishment Project, said the decision “properly recognizes that potential racial discrimination in jury selection deserves meaningful scrutiny and careful review.”

Mr. Evans, the prosecutor, has retired from the Montgomery County district attorney’s office. The Mississippi attorney general’s office, which defended the conviction, did not respond to a request for comment.

To read more CLICK HERE

15 years of pretrial hearings for Guantanamo detainees

Prosecutors portrayed the prisoners as unrepentant jihadists who bragged about their roles in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to federal agents during their first months in military detention at Guantánamo Bay, reported The New York Times.

Defense lawyers cast the men as so broken by violence and solitary confinement in their years in C.I.A. prisons overseas that they were groomed to involuntarily confess to U.S. agents.

Over eight days this month, the two sides offered these stark, clashing views to a military judge who is now confronted with the overarching question in the long-running capital case: Did Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who is accused of hatching and organizing the Sept. 11 attacks, and two co-defendants voluntarily incriminate themselves to F.B.I. agents years ago, and can their statements be used against them?

The case is in its 15th year of these pretrial proceedings, and no date has been set for the trial to begin. But the judge’s decision could be a turning point almost 25 years after the attacks killed nearly 3,000 people in New York, Pennsylvania and at the Pentagon.

Stephan Gerhardt, whose brother Ralph was killed in the attack on the World Trade Center, said the judge’s decision would provide “a major step forward as it answers probably the biggest legal question that needs resolution before a trial date being set.”

He watched some of the arguments in the court at Guantánamo this month.

The legal question before the judge is not about the crime itself, the largest terrorist attack ever in the United States. That will be left for a trial.

It is whether the prisoners were so thoroughly conditioned after more than three years of incommunicado detention, which started off with brutality and continued with years of questioning by U.S. government agents, that they involuntarily told their captors what they wanted to hear.

A crux of the question confronting the judge is the legal principle of attenuation, how to get an untainted confession after a coerced one. Prosecutors say the “clean” interrogations at Guantánamo in 2007 met the legal standard of a change in time, change in place and change in identity of questioners.

Transfer to Guantánamo

To make his decision, the judge is reviewing years of testimony and reams of classified evidence managed by four previous judges in the case against Mr. Mohammed, Walid bin Attash and Mustafa al-Hawsawi to decide whether there was a clear moment of attenuation.

Or, as the judge called it, the pivot.

Military judges have so far thrown out the confessions of two other capital defendants, Ammar al-Baluchi and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, because of what the C.I.A. did to them. Prosecutors are appealing to reinstate Mr. Baluchi’s statements.

“Mr. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed could not shut up about his role as the emir of the 9/11 attacks,” the lead prosecutor, Clayton G. Trivett Jr., said on the first day of the hearing. Mr. Trivett said Mr. Mohammed boasted about the attacks to C.I.A. interrogators after he was captured in Pakistan in March 2003 and then to F.B.I. agents at Guantánamo in January 2007.

It was in March 2003 when Mr. Mohammed was in C.I.A. custody that he was waterboarded 183 times. His lawyer, Gary D. Sowards, said that after his client was tortured, he was questioned hundreds of times, sometimes three times a day, by C.I.A. investigators.

 To read more CLICK HERE