letter-to-editor-opinion.png

Letter to the Editor: David Pedri deserving of ‘promotion’ to Luzerne County manager’s post, says colleague

web1_TTL042816glodzik.jpg

Former city tower Leo A. Glodzik III pleads guilty to charges of mail fraud, filing false income tax return

<p>This year, the legal community, our justice system and the nation commemorate the 50th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision in the case of Miranda v. Arizona.</p><p>At the time, Miranda caused great controversy, particularly by those in law enforcement over the nature and extent of constitutional rights of criminal suspects, notably the right to have legal counsel &#8211; regardless of the defendant&#8217;s ability to pay &#8211; immediately after arrest and during interrogation and prosecution.</p><p>In many respects, Miranda built on two other U.S. Supreme Court cases, Gideon v. Wainwright and Escobedo v. Illinois. Much debated was whether or not these cases had expanded an interpretation of the Constitution&#8217;s Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth amendments or merely explicated and better effectuated those rights.</p><p>Immediately following the Miranda decision, police and prosecutors offered dire predictions that convictions would be dramatically curtailed by the Miranda decision, but those fears have been nullified by the passage of time. Improved investigative methods and scientific advancements have no doubt helped maintain conviction rates, but Miranda proved not to be a widespread, insurmountable obstacle to crime-solving or guilty verdicts.</p><p>Now, while whole generations have grown up watching television shows in which the Miranda warnings are routinely read to criminal suspects, it is difficult to fathom a time before Miranda when the right to an attorney and the right to remain silent while being questioned by police were never explained to those arrested.</p><p>However, Miranda represents more than a formal notice to people taken into custody. It also emphatically advanced the American concept that fairness in the criminal justice system is an ideal that requires good-faith actions by those in authority and evidence that is obtained through proper means as overseen and enforced by the courts. It is a corollary to the principle of the presumption of innocence.</p><p>It is axiomatic that there is no public interest in convicting an innocent person. Nor does a wrongful conviction do right by victims or their families. Besides causing incalculable damage to the innocent, prosecuting and incarcerating the wrong person is a waste of valuable resources, and it leaves the true criminal at large to menace society again.</p><p>We now live in an age where hardly a week goes by that we don&#8217;t read or hear about someone being released from jail after years of incarceration because new evidence has come forth or old evidence has been discredited. Too many of these former convicts have spent time on death row.</p><p>We also have been exposed increasingly to videos that often demonstrate versions of events that contradict either official reports or witness statements. Moreover, scientific research has demonstrated the diminished value of eyewitness identifications and even some confessions. Many of these issues were explored in the recent Netflix documentary series &#8220;Making of a Murderer,&#8221; whose widespread popularity underscores Americans&#8217; passion for justice.</p><p>As we are now engaged in a fight over the latest nomination of a justice to the Supreme Court, the role of that court and individual justices should stand as a reminder of the importance of the office and institution. The Miranda opinion also stands as a reminder that the Constitution and the rights it protects have not always been clear or without legitimate and vigorous debate.</p><style>
.neFileBlock {
	margin-bottom: 20px;
}
.neFileBlock p {
	margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px;
}
.neFileBlock .neFile {
	border-bottom: 1px dotted #aaa;
	padding-bottom: 5px;
	padding-top: 10px;
}
.neFileBlock .neCaption {
	font-size: 85%;
}
</style>
<div class='neFileBlock'>
<div class="neFile"><img class="neImage" src="https://www.timesleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/web1_Fallk.jpg">
<div class="neCaption"></div></div><div class="metaInfo"><photo0>https://www.timesleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/web1_Fallk.jpg</photo0><caption0></caption0><photoCredit0></photoCredit0></div></div>
<div class="metaInfo"><bylineMeta><p>David I. Fallk</p><p>Guest columnist</p></bylineMeta></div><div class="metaInfo"><shirttailMeta><p>David I. Fallk is a Scranton trial attorney. <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/initiatives_awards/lawday2016.html" target="_blank">Law Day</a>, an annual observance to draw attention to the role of law in society, is Sunday.</p></shirttailMeta></div>

David I. Fallk: Fifty years later, Miranda case reminds of ongoing struggle to ensure justice prevails