For decades, most people have known about their rights against self-incrimination and to legal representation because of the 1966 landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in Miranda v. Arizona. The subsequent Miranda rights require law enforcement to inform individuals of their Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights before interrogation. Civil rights advocates have been deeply disappointed with the current Supreme Court's recent decision in a related case, which denies people the ability to seek compensation when government actors fail to meet that requirement.
Last month's decision in Vega v. Tekoh was a result of an interrogation involving the use of an un-"Mirandized" confession in a criminal case. When a jury found the defendant not guilty, that defendant sued the police officer for violating his constitutional rights. In a 6-3 decision, however, the court determined that Miranda rights are simply rules designed to prevent a violation of constitutional rights and a failure to read someone their Miranda rights isn't necessarily a violation of those rights.
Gary L. Stuart is a lawyer, professor and author of "Miranda: The Story of America's Right to Remain Silent." Stuart attended the University of Arizona and still lives in the state today, which is where the case began. He knew a number of the people involved in the case at the time, including his constitutional law professor, John P. Frank, one of the lawyers who argued Miranda before the Supreme Court. Stuart took some time to talk about the significance of this recent court decision and why he thinks the majority opinion got it wrong. (This interview has been edited for length and clarity. )
