From Booklist
It seems odd to think of it, but a suspect's right to remain silent is only four decades old. Well, that's not precisely true: U.S. citizens have had the right not to incriminate themselves for some time, but it was not until the 1963 case of Miranda v. Arizona that advising a suspect of the right to remain silent became encoded in law. When told he had been identified by a witness, Ernesto Miranda, an accused serial rapist, figured he might as well fess up. He didn't know he had the right to keep his mouth shut because the police officers hadn't told him. That simple, seemingly insignificant incident changed the American legal system in a massive way. The author, an attorney and law professor who knew many of the people involved in the Miranda case and its aftermath, tells the story simply, making even the most complicated and subtle legal points entirely clear. He also explores how the Miranda decision affects law enforcement in the post-9/11 world. Interesting, timely, and important. David Pitt
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved

Book Description
Here is the inside story of one of the most significant Supreme Court cases in U.S. history--and the legal history of the accused's right to counsel and silence. Stuart personally knows many of the figures involved in the Miranda case and here unravels its complex history, revealing how the defense attorneys created the argument brought before the Court and analyzing the competing societal interests involved. He considers the case's aftermath, updates the story to the Supreme Court's 2000 Dickerson decision upholding Miranda, and considers its implications for cases involving the rights of suspected terrorists.

From the Inside Flap
One of the most significant Supreme Court cases in U.S. history has its roots in Arizona and is closely tied to the state's leading legal figures. Miranda has become a household word; now Gary Stuart tells the inside story of this famous case, and with it the legal history of the accused's right to counsel and silence. Ernesto Miranda was an uneducated Hispanic man arrested in 1963 in connection with a series of sexual assaults, to which he confessed within hours. He was convicted not on the strength of eyewitness testimony or physical evidence but almost entirely because he had incriminated himself without knowing it--and without knowing that he didn't have to. Miranda's lawyers, John P. Frank and John F. Flynn, were among the most prominent in the state, and their work soon focused the entire country on the issue of their client's rights. A 1966 Supreme Court decision held that Miranda's rights had been violated and resulted in the now-famous "Miranda warnings." Stuart personally knows many of the figures involved in Miranda, and here he unravels its complex history, revealing how the defense attorneys created the argument brought before the Court and analyzing the competing societal interests involved in the case. He considers Miranda's aftermath--not only the test cases and ongoing political and legal debate but also what happened to Ernesto Miranda. He then updates the story to the Supreme Court's 2000 Dickerson decision upholding Miranda--a Court with two former Arizona lawyers, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor--and considers its implications for cases in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the rights of suspected terrorists. Interviews with 24 individuals directly concerned with the decision--lawyers, judges, and police officers, as well as suspects, scholars, and ordinary citizens--offer observations on the case's impact on law enforcement and on the rights of the accused. Ten years after the decision in the case that bears his name, Ernesto Miranda was murdered in a knife fight at a Phoenix bar, his killer arrested by the same police officers who had once arrested Miranda. That the defendant was "Mirandized" before confessing to the crime amply attests to the significance of this landmark decision. Miranda: The Story of America's Right to Remain Silent considers the legacy of that case and its fate in the twenty-first century as we face new challenges in the criminal justice system.

About the Author
Gary L. Stuart is a nationally recognized author and lecturer on trial advocacy, ethics, and professional responsibility whose books include The Ethical Trial Lawyer, Ethical Litigation, and most recently the historical novel The Gallup 14. He was a partner in one of Arizona's largest law firms, Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, P.L.C., from 1967 through 1998 and now practices law part-time.

FROM THE PUBLISHER

One of the most significant Supreme Court cases in U.S. history has its roots in Arizona and is closely tied to the state's leading legal figures. Miranda has become a household word; now Gary Stuart tells the inside story of this famous case, and with it the legal history of the accused's right to counsel and silence. Ernesto Miranda was an uneducated Hispanic man arrested in 1963 in connection with a series of sexual assaults, to which he confessed within hours. He was convicted not on the strength of eyewitness testimony or physical evidence but almost entirely because he had incriminated himself without knowing it-and without knowing that he didn't have to. Miranda's lawyers, John P. Frank and John F. Flynn, were among the most prominent in the state, and their work soon focused the entire country on the issue of their client's rights. A 1966 Supreme Court decision held that Miranda's rights had been violated and resulted in the now-famous "Miranda warnings."

Stuart personally knows many of the figures involved in Miranda, and here he unravels its complex history, revealing how the defense attorneys created the argument brought before the Court and analyzing the competing societal interests involved in the case. He considers Miranda's aftermath-not only the test cases and ongoing political and legal debate but also what happened to Ernesto Miranda. He then updates the story to the Supreme Court's 2000 Dickerson decision upholding Miranda-a Court with two former Arizona lawyers, Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice O'Connor-and considers its implications for cases in the wake of 9/11 and the rights of suspected terrorists. Interviews with 24 individuals directly concerned with the decision-lawyers, judges, and police officers, as well as suspects, scholars, and ordinary citizens-offer observations on the case's impact on law enforcement and on the rights of the accused.