2016 Blended Learning Conference
RECORDED SESSIONS NOW AVAILABLE
Miranda v. Arizona
This year marked the 50th Anniversary of the Miranda decision, a case from Arizona. Before the United States Supreme Court handed down Miranda v. Arizona, our system of justice operated under a different set of assumptions about confessions and suspects’ rights. Prior to Miranda, a well-informed citizen might know of the constitutional protection against self-incrimination, but few understood this protection extended beyond the courtroom. This program is a glimpse of what Miranda is today—a thirty second tutorial on constitutional law given thousands of times in every part of America.
Miranda Warnings & Miranda the Next 50 Years
Probation officers are the enforcement arm of the court. Their two-pronged objective is to improve the conduct and condition of the probationer and to protect the public from future criminal violations. The exclusionary rule that would ban illegally obtained evidence from admissibility in trials, thereby deterring police misconduct, does not apply to probation violation hearings. The function of a violation hearing is not to determine guilt or innocence but to determine, by a preponderance of the evidence, whether a probationer violated one or more of the conditions of probation. All reliable evidence may be considered. This session will take a look at the elements of the MirandaWarning, when it does and does not apply to interviews by probation officers with probationers, the public safety exception to Miranda, and a look at several legal decisions that serve as the foundation for current policy and practice (Minnesota v. Murphy, State v. Valencia, New York v. Quarles).
Immediately following Probation Chief Sanders presentation there will be a round table discussion moderated by Judge Nicole Laurin with Professor Gary Stuart and Probation Chief Dave Sanders. While most questions about suspects’ rights have been answered by the courts in legal opinions, this group will discuss some questions that continue to arise: Can police give false information to a suspect to induce a confession? Is a school official required to inform a student of Miranda rights prior to questioning about a crime? As a court employee, can I exercise my Miranda rights if I am accused of criminal activity? Join a discussion panel to explore these and other Miranda-related issues.
Say What!? An Exploration of the Q&R Handbook
Program Materials Link: Q & R Handbook
In April 2015 Chief Justice Scott Bales established the Arizona Commission on the Access to Justice (ACAJ). The ACAJ formed a number of workgroups, one of which addresses the needs of self-represented litigants in family court. One of the recommendations of the ACAJ was to update the 2007 Supreme Court Q&R Handbook to educate court staff and to provide consistent responses regarding “legal advice v. legal information.”
This course will explore the some of the most commonly asked questions from the Supreme Court’s revised Q&R Handbook to educate court staff in providing consistent responses regarding legal advice v. legal information. As a result of this class it is hoped that court customers will have increased confidence in the work of the judicial branch and better appreciate the role courts play in protecting individual rights.
Released September 2016