Podcast appearances and mentions of Miranda V Arizona

In this week's episode, Lizzie and Arden explore the landmark Supreme Court case, Miranda v. Arizona! Join them as they look at the facts of the case, what the court had to consider, and what the lasting effects of the decision was AKA Miranda Rights! Follow us on Twitter and Instagram at @letsgetcivical, @lizzie_the_rock_stewart, and @ardenjulianna. Or visit us at letsgetcivical.com for all the exciting updates! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode, we delve into the landmark 1966 US Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona, which gave rise to the famous "Miranda rights" that are now a staple of police procedures in the United States.Surprisingly, this crucial decision was a close 5-to-4 ruling by the Supreme Court, a fact that is not widely known to the public.Join Attorney Andrew Branca as he breaks down the majority opinion and the three powerful dissents in the Miranda v. Arizona case. In this Part 4 of 4 Andrew reads the third and final dissenting opinion.Gain a deeper understanding of the legal reasoning behind this historic decision and discover the nuances that shaped the landscape of criminal justice in America.Don't miss out on this fascinating exploration of one of the most pivotal Supreme Court rulings in US history.Subscribe to our channel for more insightful legal analysis and stay tuned for future episodes where we decode complex legal cases and provide expert commentary.Let's uncover the truth behind the law together!BECOME A LAW OF SELF DEFENSE EXPERT IN ONE DAY!Twice a year Attorney Andrew Branca hosts a LIVE full-day Law of Self Defense Advanced Webinar--and one of those rare opportunities is coming up on Saturday, April 20, 2024.Learn how to be HARD TO CONVICT if you're ever compelled to defend yourself, your family, or your property against criminal predation, IN A SINGLE DAY.Learn how the criminal justice system perceives and evaluates claims of self-defense, learn the five elements of any self-defense claim, learn defense of others and property, learn how to interact with the police in the aftermath of a use-of-force event, and much, MUCH more.And for a brief time you can SAVE UP TO 50% by registering during the early discount period.Click here NOW to learn more:  https://lawofselfdefense.com/advancedDisclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice. If you are in need of legal advice you must consult  competent legal counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.#MirandaVArizona #SupremeCourt #LegalAnalysis #ConstitutionalLaw #5 #FourthAmendment #DueProcess #CriminalProcedure #CivilRights #LawStudents #LegalScholars #LandmarkCase #MirandaRights #Constitution #JusticeSystem #USLaw #LegalHistory #BillOfRights #LegalEducation #CriminalJustice

In this episode, we delve into the landmark 1966 US Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona, which gave rise to the famous "Miranda rights" that are now a staple of police procedures in the United States.Surprisingly, this crucial decision was a close 5-to-4 ruling by the Supreme Court, a fact that is not widely known to the public.Join Attorney Andrew Branca as he breaks down the majority opinion and the three powerful dissents in the Miranda v. Arizona case. In this Part 3 of 4 Andrew reads the first two dissenting opinions.Gain a deeper understanding of the legal reasoning behind this historic decision and discover the nuances that shaped the landscape of criminal justice in America.Don't miss out on this fascinating exploration of one of the most pivotal Supreme Court rulings in US history.Subscribe to our channel for more insightful legal analysis and stay tuned for future episodes where we decode complex legal cases and provide expert commentary.Let's uncover the truth behind the law together!BECOME A LAW OF SELF DEFENSE EXPERT IN ONE DAY!Twice a year Attorney Andrew Branca hosts a LIVE full-day Law of Self Defense Advanced Webinar--and one of those rare opportunities is coming up on Saturday, April 20, 2024.Learn how to be HARD TO CONVICT if you're ever compelled to defend yourself, your family, or your property against criminal predation, IN A SINGLE DAY.Learn how the criminal justice system perceives and evaluates claims of self-defense, learn the five elements of any self-defense claim, learn defense of others and property, learn how to interact with the police in the aftermath of a use-of-force event, and much, MUCH more.And for a brief time you can SAVE UP TO 50% by registering during the early discount period.Click here NOW to learn more:  https://lawofselfdefense.com/advancedDisclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice. If you are in need of legal advice you must consult  competent legal counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.#MirandaVArizona #SupremeCourt #LegalAnalysis #ConstitutionalLaw #5 #FourthAmendment #DueProcess #CriminalProcedure #CivilRights #LawStudents #LegalScholars #LandmarkCase #MirandaRights #Constitution #JusticeSystem #USLaw #LegalHistory #BillOfRights #LegalEducation #CriminalJustice

In this episode, we delve into the landmark 1966 US Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona, which gave rise to the famous "Miranda rights" that are now a staple of police procedures in the United States.Surprisingly, this crucial decision was a close 5-to-4 ruling by the Supreme Court, a fact that is not widely known to the public.Join Attorney Andrew Branca as he breaks down the majority opinion and the three powerful dissents in the Miranda v. Arizona case. In this Part 1 of 4 Andrew reads the second half of the majority opinion.Gain a deeper understanding of the legal reasoning behind this historic decision and discover the nuances that shaped the landscape of criminal justice in America.Don't miss out on this fascinating exploration of one of the most pivotal Supreme Court rulings in US history.Subscribe to our channel for more insightful legal analysis and stay tuned for future episodes where we decode complex legal cases and provide expert commentary.Let's uncover the truth behind the law together!BECOME A LAW OF SELF DEFENSE EXPERT IN ONE DAY!Twice a year Attorney Andrew Branca hosts a LIVE full-day Law of Self Defense Advanced Webinar--and one of those rare opportunities is coming up on Saturday, April 20, 2024.Learn how to be HARD TO CONVICT if you're ever compelled to defend yourself, your family, or your property against criminal predation, IN A SINGLE DAY.Learn how the criminal justice system perceives and evaluates claims of self-defense, learn the five elements of any self-defense claim, learn defense of others and property, learn how to interact with the police in the aftermath of a use-of-force event, and much, MUCH more.And for a brief time you can SAVE UP TO 50% by registering during the early discount period.Click here NOW to learn more:  https://lawofselfdefense.com/advancedDisclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice. If you are in need of legal advice you must consult  competent legal counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.#MirandaVArizona #SupremeCourt #LegalAnalysis #ConstitutionalLaw #5 #FourthAmendment #DueProcess #CriminalProcedure #CivilRights #LawStudents #LegalScholars #LandmarkCase #MirandaRights #Constitution #JusticeSystem #USLaw #LegalHistory #BillOfRights #LegalEducation #CriminalJustice

In this episode, we delve into the landmark 1966 US Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona, which gave rise to the famous "Miranda rights" that are now a staple of police procedures in the United States.Surprisingly, this crucial decision was a close 5-to-4 ruling by the Supreme Court, a fact that is not widely known to the public.Join Attorney Andrew Branca as he breaks down the majority opinion and the three powerful dissents in the Miranda v. Arizona case. In this Part 1 of 4 Andrew reads the first half of the majority opinion.Gain a deeper understanding of the legal reasoning behind this historic decision and discover the nuances that shaped the landscape of criminal justice in America.Don't miss out on this fascinating exploration of one of the most pivotal Supreme Court rulings in US history.Subscribe to our channel for more insightful legal analysis and stay tuned for future episodes where we decode complex legal cases and provide expert commentary.Let's uncover the truth behind the law together!BECOME A LAW OF SELF DEFENSE EXPERT IN ONE DAY!Twice a year Attorney Andrew Branca hosts a LIVE full-day Law of Self Defense Advanced Webinar--and one of those rare opportunities is coming up on Saturday, April 20, 2024. Learn how to be HARD TO CONVICT if you're ever compelled to defend yourself, your family, or your property against criminal predation, IN A SINGLE DAY.Learn how the criminal justice system perceives and evaluates claims of self-defense, learn the five elements of any self-defense claim, learn defense of others and property, learn how to interact with the police in the aftermath of a use-of-force event, and much, MUCH more. And for a brief time you can SAVE UP TO 50% by registering during the early discount period. Click here NOW to learn more:  https://lawofselfdefense.com/advancedDisclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice. If you are in need of legal advice you must consult  competent legal counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.#MirandaVArizona #SupremeCourt #LegalAnalysis #ConstitutionalLaw #5 #FourthAmendment #DueProcess #CriminalProcedure #CivilRights #LawStudents #LegalScholars #LandmarkCase #MirandaRights #Constitution #JusticeSystem #USLaw #LegalHistory #BillOfRights #LegalEducation #CriminalJustice

Ernesto Miranda did it. There was no question. He confessed. His confession included a statement acknowledging that he was aware of his rights. But no one told him what those rights were. How do you know what you don't know? In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court would overturn his conviction and say that Miranda's Constitutional rights had been violated in obtaining the confession. Join siblings Tom and Chris as we break down the case and remind you why a strong criminal defense is paramount to receiving a fair trial.Chris is a lifelong true crime fan. Her brother, Tom is a criminal defense attorney. Chris loves to tell him about interesting cases and get his legal insights.If you are enjoying the show and would like to support us, join our Patreon for only $2 a month! That's like fifty cents per episode! Also, reviews on Apple podcasts would be greatly appreciated as it helps new listeners to find us! Find our show here.Resources:Azcentral.com - Miranda and the right to remain silent: The Phoenix storyWikipedia - Miranda v. ArizonaRight to Remain Silent: Miranda v. Arizona

*Note: The audio quality of the earliest episodes (like this one) is not the best. Sorry. Don't worry, the quality gets better in the episodes ahead as I learn the new skillset required. Audio of the 1966 opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona. Most of us have watched enough television to recite the entire Miranda warning that police say when they arrest someone. But, not everyone knows why they say it or why it's called the Miranda warning or Miranda rights. If you're one of those people, you won't be for long. That's because today I'll be reading the 1966 opinion of the Court in Miranda v. Arizona. Last episode, in Mapp v. Ohio (1961), we learned about the establishment of the exclusionary rule making evidence obtained during searches and seizures - that violate the Fourth Amendment - inadmissible in state court. Miranda v. Arizona expanded the exclusionary rule to include statements obtained in law enforcement interviews that violate the Fifth Amendment (right against self-incrimination) and Sixth Amendment right to counsel) rights of the person being questioned. So, while you might have had the Miranda warning memorized before listening to this episode, now you'll know precisely when and why police recite it.   This audio includes the primary text of the opinion, but excludes citations in order to create a better listening experience. You may access the full opinion and other essential SCOTUS case information on Oyez.org at the link below: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1965/759   Music by Epidemic Sound

Welcome back to the Hot Mess Express. Today we are talking about the famous case of Miranda v Arizona. This case is famous for giving us our Miranda rights but also has quite the ironic twist. So buckle up and grab a drink. Socials: Instagram- tequilashewrote Tiktok- tequilashewrote Facebook- tequila, she wrote Twitter- tequilashewrote Patreon- tequilashewrote Email- tequilashewrote@gmail.com Resources: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-miranda-v-arizona https://www.oyez.org/cases/1965/759 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernesto_Miranda https://www.thehardylawfirm.com/blog/what-are-miranda-rights-and-who-was-ernesto-miranda/ --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/tequilashewrote/support

Virtually  every adult in the United States is familiar with their Miranda rights.  Our culture is obsessed with crime, we love movies and television shows about law enforcement and shady organizations which spar against federal agents.As a result, we have all become familiar with variations of the lines "you have the right to remain silent, anything you say can - and will - be used against you in a court of law.  You have the right to an attorney.  If you cannot afford an attorney, once will be provided to you at no cost."In America, before any law enforcement officer can conduct a custodial interrogation of a suspect, whether they're under arrest or not, they are required to inform that individual of these rights and secure a voluntary waiver, indicating that the individual understands his or her rights and is willing to speak to law enforcement under the current conditions.But have you ever stopped to think about why law enforcement is required to affirmatively tell you about the rights you have?  It's actually quite counter-intuitive.  The police or the FBI is required to tell you that you can refuse to answer any questions before they are permitted to ask you anything.  Shouldn't it be an individual's responsibility to know, and assert, their own rights?In this episode, we look at the origins of the requirement that law enforcement inform suspects and defendants of their rights to remain silent and right to counsel.  Listen to the story of Ernesto Miranda, who was arrested for kidnapping and rape, voluntary answered questions and ended up confessing without ever knowing that the had the right to refuse to answer or the right to have a lawyer there with him.  His appeal became the catalyst for one of the most transformative Supreme Court opinions of all time.With the episode, the goal is to provide some insights into  the origins of one of the most sacred and cherished rights for American criminal law.  And show how close it was to never existing.

On June 13, 1966, an important Supreme Court decision was announced. It affected the way law enforcement all over the country did their job. But, if you've never been arrested, you might only know about this landmark case from watching crime dramas. Listen to find out about Ernesto Miranda and Miranda vs. Arizona. SOURCES “About the Supreme Court.” United States Courts. Accessed September 19, 2021. https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/about. “Ernesto Miranda.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, August 10, 2021. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernesto_Miranda. Kimble, Mark. “Ernest Miranda's Legacy: 'You Have the Right...'.” Tucson Citizen (Tucson, Arizona), January 27, 2005. www.newspapers.com. “Miranda v. Arizona.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, August 22, 2021. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona. Moller, Dave, and Liz Kellar. “Former DA and Fine Printer Harold Berliner Dies.” TheUnion.com, April 27, 2010. https://www.theunion.com/news/local-news/former-da-and-fine-printer-harold-berliner-dies/. “Police Get Official Word On Interrogation Procedures.” Chula Vista Star-News (Chula Vista, California), June 23, 1966. www.newspapers.com. Shine, Jacqui. “How ‘You Have the Right to Remain Silent' Became the Standard Miranda Warning.” Slate Magazine. Slate, July 2, 2014. https://slate.com/human-interest/2014/07/miranda-warning-history-how-the-language-of-the-warning-became-standard.html. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

A series of discussions of landmark Supreme Court decisions begins with this discussion. This episode we will be discussing the classic case of Miranda v. Arizona. 

TVC 543.5: Joseph Wallenstein, author of Flynn and Miranda: Your Right to Remain Silent, discusses how the Miranda case addresses both Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment issues. He also shares a few stories about his career in television, including working with Julie Harris and producer Michael Filerman on Knots Landing, and with Oscar winner Jessica Tandy on the award-winning TV-movie The Story Lady. Flynn and Miranda: Your Right to Remain Silent is a historical novel that not only tells the back story of the historic U.S. Supreme Court ruling Miranda v. Arizona from June 1966, but explores how the outcome of the case had a ruinous effect on attorney John Flynn. Joe's book also includes the original U.S. Supreme Court petition that Flynn filed in July 1965, plus the transcript of a detailed interview that Flynn gave to Joe in September 1979 (just a few months before Flynn died). June 13, 2021 marked the 55th anniversary of the Miranda decision. Want to advertise/sponsor our show? TV Confidential has partnered with AdvertiseCast to handle advertising/sponsorship requests for the podcast edition of our program. They're great to work with and will help you advertise on our show. Please email sales@advertisecast.com or click the link below to get started: https://www.advertisecast.com/TVConfidentialAradiotalkshowabout Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

TVC 543.4: Ed welcomes Joseph Wallenstein, award-winning writer, producer, and director for film and television, and the director of physical production at the University of Southern California School of Cinematic Arts. Joe's latest book, Flynn and Miranda: Your Right to Remain Silent, is a historical novel that not only tells the back story of the historic U.S. Supreme Court ruling Miranda v. Arizona from June 1966, but puts a human face on the people involved—particularly, John Flynn, the real-life defense lawyer from Phoenix, Arizona who not only argued the Miranda case before the U.S. Supreme Court at great personal cost, but in so doing created a legal precedent, the right to fairness, that changed the lives of all Americans. June 13, 2021 marked the 55th anniversary of the Miranda decision. Topics this segment include what first drove Joe's interest in the Miranda case, and how the Supreme Court ruling helped shape the U.S. Code of Criminal Procedure as we know it today. Want to advertise/sponsor our show? TV Confidential has partnered with AdvertiseCast to handle advertising/sponsorship requests for the podcast edition of our program. They're great to work with and will help you advertise on our show. Please email sales@advertisecast.com or click the link below to get started: https://www.advertisecast.com/TVConfidentialAradiotalkshowabout Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today we will go over another issue related to race and even xenophobia some would call. This is a famous case that had a huge impact in today's society. Yes, it happened about half a century ago, but times are changing very quickly, and every year means a lot. This case is a true example that the rights of the accused must be respected in all aspects, regardless if they committed a crime or not, or even regardless the type of crime they committed. This video is sponsored by PodDecks: Use Code TCNS for 10% off. https://www.poddecks.com/?peachs_apc=lawrence-leaseOTHER SOCIAL MEDIA: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/truecrimeneversleepspodcastTwitter: https://twitter.com/truecrimens

This week Megan tells the Story of Ernesto Miranda, whose life has left a lasting impact on the criminal justice system in the United States. Megan has noticed a lot of Bachelor Nation lives in Arizona, and SEVERAL members of Bach Nation go to Habit Salon outside of Phoenix, SO, Megan tells the story of Ernesto Miranda, a young man who grew up near Phoenix, Arizona, and was murdered at the age of 34. Ernesto had his own criminal history, including a 1963 rape and kidnapping. Megan won’t go into details about this. Ernesto’s trial (and re-trial) led to the United States Supreme Court case that has had a lasting impact on the criminal justice system in America - it’s Miranda v. Arizona (aka your Miranda rights). CONTENT WARNING: Sexual Assault Promo: The Cracked Pot Connect with us at linktr.ee/CrimeandRoses There you can see links to listen and share the podcast and connect with us on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook. Email: CrimeandRoses@gmail.com. Send us crime suggestions and any questions or comments you may have. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/crimeandroses/support

Come on down to the TRUTH-BRARY!We got Ken, Susan and Sontag, those rascals! We got Marshall Redwood and that dick Fire Marshal Dave! We got gross gestures of peace and goodwill! We got questions about Miranda v. Arizona! We got poutine ideas! WHO ARE YOU TO RESIST?Peculiar Objects Season 2 is run by Nigel Collins and played by Thony Moore, Steve Mims and Casey Hills, who also edits and produces it. Find it and more of our shows on the Semiautomagic Podcast Network at semiautomagicinc.com, and follow us on Twitter @Semiautomagi and @The_PO_Box!

Episode 238. Topic: Miranda v. Arizona. Theme: US Supreme Court cases. Why is it that when you are arrested in America, you hear the common script that begins, "You have the right to remain silent..."?

The case of Miranda v. Arizona went to the United States Supreme Court and set a new standard for law enforcement. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a watershed moment for democracy. Christophe Difo and Sean Prophet discuss her life, her accomplishments, the legal implications of her death, how the Dems should fight back. We also discuss climate change and the fossil fuel mafia, how all this is connected, and what we can do about it. The Radical Secular presents politics from a liberal, cosmopolitan perspective. Show notes: Trump's SCOTUS https://www.afj.org/our-work/judicial-nominations/trumps-scotus-short-list/ (shortlist): Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Supreme Court https://www.teenvogue.com/story/ruth-bader-ginsburg-supreme-court-rulings-to-know-about (rulings): Chief Justice Roberts's lifelong crusade against voting rights, https://www.vox.com/21211880/supreme-court-chief-justice-john-roberts-voting-rights-act-election-2020 (explained): https://medium.com/just-words-fallacy/youre-wrong-the-war-in-afghanistan-is-not-america-s-longest-war-ef2c654a566b (You're Wrong. The War in Afghanistan is Not America's Longest War.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona (Miranda v. Arizona) ___________________________ Email: theradicalsecular@gmail.com Instagram: @radical_secular https://www.facebook.com/theradicalsecular (Facebook) Twitter: @RadicalSecular https://the-radical-secular.captivate.fm (Podcast) and all standard podcast venues: Apple, Google, Spotify, Stitcher, etc. https://medium.com/just-words-fallacy (The Just Words Fallacy) ____________________________ Don't waste your time posting on FB or texting like-minded friends. Get organized. Target candidates in vulnerable Republican senatorial races or those who just hate Trump. CALL THEIR OFFICES ON THE PHONE. Call them every day. Say (as politely as you can) that you request that the senate not confirm another supreme court nominee until after the next president is sworn in on January 20, 2021. Reports say that Lisa Murkowski has already stated she WILL NOT vote for a new supreme court justice until after the next president is in office. Call her! Lisa Murkowski: (202) 224-6665 (Hates Trump) Mitt Romney: (202) 224-5251 (Hates Trump) Susan Collins: (202) 224-2523 (Is going to lose anyway – so should hate Trump) Martha McSally: (202) 224-2235 (Vulnerable) Cory Gardner: (202) 224-5941 (Vulnerable) We have to have FOUR Republican senators who will vote against in order to save the supreme court. Don't waste your energy complaining to McConnell. Don't try to reason with him (but you said in 2016…) that is a waste of energy. And give a shit-ton of money to every senate candidate we need to win an election and stay in office: https://hickenlooper.com/ (John Hickenlooper) in Colorado https://markkelly.com/ (Mark Kelly) in Arizona https://saragideon.com/ (Sara Gideon) in Maine https://www.calfornc.com/ (Cal Cunningham) in North Carolina https://amymcgrath.com/ (Amy McGrath) (Mitch's opponent!!) in Kentucky

On this day in 1966, the historic Miranda v. Arizona case was decided, giving rise to the requirement for police to read suspects their “Miranda rights” when arresting them.

Today in history: 'Grease' has it's world premiere. Pioneer 10 leaves the solar system.  James Earl Ray recaptured. Supreme Court ruled in Miranda v. Arizona.  

We all know that Miranda rights are important. They’re a staple in every episode of Law & Order. They’re a quick and concise way of making a person aware of their rights. But how did we get Miranda rights? Well, it’s complicated. And it all started with a world-class douchebag named Ernesto Miranda.  Then, Kristin tells us about anchorwoman Christine Craft. Christine was good at her job. By the time she was hired to co-anchor the evening news in Kansas City, she’d proven herself as a talented reporter and a hard worker. But Christine was no dummy. She knew that women news anchors get unfairly judged for their looks. So before she took the job in Kansas City, she told the station management that she wasn’t looking for a makeover. They assured her they were hiring her for her journalistic talent. They were full of shit. And now for a note about our process. For each episode, Kristin reads a bunch of articles, then spits them back out in her very limited vocabulary. Brandi copies and pastes from the best sources on the web. And sometimes Wikipedia. (No shade, Wikipedia. We love you.) We owe a huge debt of gratitude to the real experts who covered these cases. In this episode, Kristin pulled from: “The surfing and survival of Christine Craft,” by Elisabeth Bumiller for the Washington Post “Judging the news by appearance,” The Age “Jury awards Christine Craft $325,000,” by Peter Kerr for The New York Times “Once fired for appearance: Christine Craft to be anchor in Sacramento,” by Jay Sharbutt for The Los Angeles Times The appellate court opinion (https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/766/1205/303027/) on Justia.com The book, “Waiting for Prime Time: The Women of Television News” by Marlene Sanders and Marcia Rock “Manager: Appearance key for the TV news anchor,” United Press International “Christine Craft” wikipedia In this episode, Brandi pulled from: “Miranda v. Arizona: The Crime That Changed American Justice” by Mark Gribben, The Crime Library “Miranda v. Arizona”http://wikipedia.org “Facts and Case Summary - Miranda v. Arizona” USCourts.gov (http://uscourts.gov) “Miranda v. Arizona” Encyclopedia Britannica

[caption id="attachment_280" align="alignright" width="150"] The beautiful lobby of the Roosevelt Hotel. aka the calm before the storm.[/caption] In this week's episode Jeremy, Kurt and Adam worry about the long term effects of their weekend in New Orleans and discuss all the various remedies to cure the common hangover.  Remedies discussed include Pedialyte, Water, vitamins, Ener-C+, and many more (like the Bloody Mary from last episode). We have a short show today, discussing a couple legal issues: Common Miranda misconceptions.  Miranda v. Arizona is the critical case regarding "custodial interrogation" but there are a number of exceptions carved out as to what is "custody" and what exactly is "interrogation."  Jeremy provides examples. How corrupt is Baltimore?  How does that compare with New Orleans? [caption id="attachment_294" align="alignleft" width="150"] The Shirt.[/caption] Well, New Orleans has a "Hall of Shame" for their corrupt politicians.  It's got 71 members.  See here.   And the FBI says New Orleans is THE WORST.  Read here for more. It's fairly safe to say that New Orleans would burn through Baltimore's gift cards in a day or less. Oh, and for our drink review, nothing like being a creeper in the kiddie aisle at a grocery store getting gallons and gallons of pedialyte.  But hey, it works!   One last note: Here's an article about a guy who spent a decade testing various hangover remedies.  He determines that the best cure is a mix of OTC supplements; a doctor quoted in the article still suggests our remedy = pedialyte. HT: Brobible [caption id="" align="alignright" width="680"] New Orleans Santa Parade, by Elvis[/caption]   [caption id="attachment_282" align="alignleft" width="300"] The original mixed drink (allegedly) from the Sazerac bar in the Roosevelt Hotel. This drink, and a few others, led to our needing some significant assistance from Pedialyte and other common Hangover cures.[/caption] Lawyers on the Rocks is sponsored by the Law Office of Eldridge, Nachtman & Crandell, LLC and produced by Up Next Creative, LLC.

Miranda v. Arizona by Timur Boltaev

This is the landmark case that decides the rights of the accused. Miranda confessed - doesn't that make him guilty? One would think - but what if the proper procedure wasn't followed? What if he didn't know he had the right to remain silent? That is the focus of this very important case. A 5-4 decision for Miranda adds to the controversy.

In this episode of IRAC our team discusses the Louisiana Supreme Court case deciding that requesting a "lawyer dog" is not sufficient to place police officers on notice that a suspect is invoking his right to counsel. We also feature Leila Arefi-Pour to speak on Student Animal Legal Defense Fund. The cases and facts can be found below: Case at Issue: http://www.lasc.org/opinions/2017/17KK0954.sjc.addconc.pdf Vera Institute: https://www.vera.org/centers/new-orleans Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981). Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994) People v. Roquemore, 2006 WL 6368805. People v. Gonzales, 34 Cal. 4th 1111. Matthews v. State, 106 Md. App. 725. Eric Czar: https://www.youtube.com/user/ericczar

Drs. Chris Burkett, Stephen Tootle, and Jeff Sikkenga discussed the background, constitutional questions, politics, and immediate and long-range impact of the landmark case Miranda v. Arizona (1966) during 7 JAN 2017's Saturday Webinar. Access the full archives here. The post Saturday Webinar: Miranda v. Arizona appeared first on Teaching American History.

April 27, 2016. Roberta Shaffer interviewed Paulette Brown Brown about her distinguished legal career as well as the significance of the 1966 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Miranda v. Arizona. Speaker Biography: Paulette Brown became the first African-American woman to lead the American Bar Association (ABA) in August 2015. She is partner and co-chair of the Diversity and Inclusion Committee at the international law firm, Locke Lord LLP. She has held many positions throughout her career including in-house counsel to a number of 500 Fortune companies and as a municipal court judge. In private practice, she has specialized in all aspects of labor and employment and commercial litigation. Speaker Biography: Roberta I. Shaffer is the Law Librarian of Congress. Shaffer has had a distinguished career as a practicing librarian in various settings and as a library-science educator. She held positions at the George Washington University Law School, the Catholic University of America, the University of Texas and the University of Maryland. For transcript, captions, and more information, visit http://www.loc.gov/today/cyberlc/feature_wdesc.php?rec=7424

"You have the right to remain silent.” Because of TV shows and movies, most people probably know at least this part of the Miranda warning. But do people actually understand all of their Miranda rights? Fifty years after the landmark decision in Miranda v. Arizona, we speak to Russell Covey of Georgia State University State’s College of Law to find out what people know and don’t know about their rights. Russell Covey, a professor at Georgia State University’s College of Law, teaches criminal law and procedure. One of his articles, “Miranda and the Media:  Tracing the Cultural Evolution of a Constitutional Revolution,” was published in the 2007 Chapman Law Review. Special thanks to our sponsors Amicus Attorney.

"You have the right to remain silent.” Because of TV shows and movies, most people probably know at least this part of the Miranda warning. But do people actually understand all of their Miranda rights? Fifty years after the landmark decision in Miranda v. Arizona, we speak to Russell Covey of Georgia State University State’s College of Law to find out what people know and don’t know about their rights. Russell Covey, a professor at Georgia State University’s College of Law, teaches criminal law and procedure. One of his articles, “Miranda and the Media: Tracing the Cultural Evolution of a Constitutional Revolution,” was published in the 2007 Chapman Law Review. Special thanks to our sponsors Amicus Attorney.

Guests talk about the 1966 Supreme Court case [Miranda v. Arizona], in which the Court ruled that suspects must be informed of their right against self-incrimination and their right to consult with an attorney before being questioned by police. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices