Cocktail Hour leads to introductions and questions, the most notable and recurring being "How do you represent someone you know is guilty?" Usually my answer is of no consequence, the examiner having formed her impression long ago. There is a calculus, however, involved in fashioning a response which takes into account both the quality and quantity of the hors d'oeuvres, accessibility to the bar, and the likelihood a larger audience forming.
It is axiomatic that no man desires to be known as a "Scoundrel" when a "Patriot" will fit just as nicely. The question presented at cocktail hour affords me then an opportunity to make the distinction. This is my pitch:
I was born without shoes the year Miranda v. Arizona was decided and I do, therefore, claim a special connection to that landmark case. Other things happened that year for certain but I have no recollection of them. The historical record supports this. It was the era of the Warren Court, a time of profound change, a time of troubles when social, political, and economic forces collided with state and federal authority.
Warren Court
Earl Warren became Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court in October 1953. He was a Progressive, New Deal, recess appointment made by President Dwight D. Eisenhower who at the time said privately that Warren represented the kind of political, economic, and social thinking that was needed on the Supreme Court. Eisenhower would later remark that appointing Warren as Chief Justice was "the biggest damned-fool mistake I ever made."
Sweeping Change. The Warren Court decided a series of cases that established standards of "FUNDAMENTAL FARINESS" for the criminally accused. These decisions, briefly described below, provide some framework for the criminal defense practitioner today.
1. Mapp v. Ohio, 1961,
Evidence obtained during an unlawful search or seizure will be SUPPRESSED.
2. Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963,
No person shall be forced to appear in court without counsel.
3. Escobedo v. Illinois, 1964,
No person shall be forced to undergo interrogation without counsel.
4. Miranda v. Arizona, 1966.
Police must warn that the person has the right to remain silent, that he/she has the right to an attorney, and that if he/she cannot afford an attorney that one will be appointed prior to questioning if he/she desires.
But the scope of Warren Court decisions was not limited to the rights of the criminally accused. Over 16 years (1953-1969) Earl Warren redefined the cultural landscape of the country through Jurisprudence to wit:
The Court outlawed school segregation; articulated the one-man, one-vote doctrine; made most of the Bill of Rights binding on the states; curbed wiretapping; barred racial discrimination in (a) voting, (b) in marriage laws, (c) in the use of public parks, airports and bus terminals, and (d) in housing sales and rentals; The Court extended the boundaries of free speech; ruled out compulsory religious exercises in public schools; held that Federal prisoners could sue the Government for injuries sustained in jail; liberalized residency requirements for welfare recipients; and sustained the right to disseminate and receive birth control information.
Alas, it is the quotation from the man himself, Chief Justice Earl Warren which succinctly answers the cocktail question:
Where there is injustice, we should correct it; where there is poverty, we should eliminate it; where there is corruption, we should stamp it out; where there is violence we should punish it; where there is neglect, we should provide care; where there is war, we should restore peace; and wherever corrections are achieved we should add them permanently to our storehouse of treasure.
"But what if you actually knew he was guilty?"
