Miranda v. Arizona, and the Fascinating Science of False Confessions

OA1190 - “You have the right to remain silent.” Anyone who grew up on American crime dramas can recite the rest of these famous warnings from memory, but do you know the whole story of Miranda v. Arizona (1966)? In today’s entry in our “Still Good Law” series Matt and Jenessa voluntarily waive their rights, cautiously accept a cigarette and a Styrofoam cup of bad coffee from an alcoholic cop with a dark past, and spill everything they know about the most important criminal case in Supreme Court history. Matt provides the background on Ernesto Miranda’s literal life (and death) of crime and the circumstances of his arrest, interrogation, and appeal to the Warren Court while Jenessa breaks down the science of false confessions and why not just having but knowing our Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights is so important for all of us. Oral arguments and decision in Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Miranda: The Story of America’s Right to Remain Silent, Gary Stuart (2008) Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do! To support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1189 - The Supreme Court’s next term may not start until October, but their infamous shadow--sorry, “interim”--docket is in rare form as they issue snap decisions on everything from exactly where one 14-year-old boy can pee to just how openly racist ICE gets to be. Matt and Jenessa review which major precedents the conservative majority is ignoring to enable Trump’s worst policies this week before getting on to some Epstein-related legal updates and a radical new development from the Board of Immigration Appeals with massive implications for Trump’s mass deportation plans.  Finally, Matt drops a footnote to address one of our nation’s least pressing legal questions: is it really true that a wedding in Kentucky can be legally officiated by a dead bear once described as “filled to the brim with cocaine”? SCOTUS order in Trump v. Slaughter  (9/8/2025)  SCOTUS order (with Kavanaugh concurrence and Sotomayor dissent) in Noem v. Vasquez-Perdomo (9/8/25) Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 21 I&N 216 (BIA 2025) Kentucky Revised Statute 402.070  P.S. Matt messed up his audio and is very sorry about it!

Just because everything else is terrible out there right now, we treated ourselves to our second consecutive Law’d Awesome Movie. By popular patron demand: it’s My Cousin Vinny! We had a great time talking about this one. Actual New York Italian-American Jenessa Seymour joins to provide dead-ass balls accurate cultural context for one of the greatest Brooklyn couples ever put to film, and Matt shares his perspective as both an actual practicing courtroom lawyer and a guy who is weirdly obsessed with end credits songs that tell you about the movie you just watched.  Thanks again to patrons for this one! My Cousin Vinny, Dale Launer (1992)(full script)(PDF) “‘What is a Yute?’ An Oral History of ‘My Cousin Vinny,’” Andy Greene, Rolling Stone (3/7/22)

Continuing their "Good Law" series, Matt and Jenessa talk about Baggett v. Bullitt. This case held that "a State cannot require an employee to take an unduly vague oath containing a promise of future conduct at the risk of prosecution for perjury or loss of employment, particularly where the exercise of First Amendment freedoms may thereby be deterred." Jenessa gives a fascinating science breakdown on cognitive dissonance and what the effect of these vague oaths actually is. It's counter-intuitive and very interesting!

For this week’s Rapid Response Friday we take up three major judicial rulings pushing back against executive overreach on three completely different topics: removals under the Alien Enemies Act, the use of the National Guard to conduct domestic law enforcement, and the  imposition of tariffs as an executive action under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Also: it turns out a DC grand jury really can't indict a ham sandwich, and why Brazil is so much better at prosecuting insurrectionists than the US is. Fifth Circuit's decision in W.M.M. et al (9/2/25) Judge Charles Breyer’s decision in Newson v. Trump (9/2/25) Federal Circuit’s decision in V.O.S. Selections v. Trump (8/29/25)

VR6 - For today’s Vapid Response Wednesday, Thomas, Lydia, and Matt review two examples from a newly-popular genre of lazy right wing op-eds: insecure white guys complaining about Supreme Court justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. What is with these losers who are so obsessed with trying to prove that one of the most qualified nominees to the high court in our lifetimes isn’t fit for the job? We take dark-money sugar baby Josh Hammer up on the joke to compare his life achievements to someone who began her SCOTUS career with four times as much courtroom experience as John Roberts, Elena Kagan, Clarence Thomas, and Amy Coney Barrett combined--before moving on to trying to even understand what Federalist weirdo Shawn Fleetwood thinks he is saying. “Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is an Insult to the Supreme Court,” Josh Hammer, Newsweek (7/1/2025) “KBJ Could Learn a Few Lessons in ‘Professionalism’ From Justice Barrett,” Shawn Fleetwood, The Federalist (8/20/2025) Ketanji Brown Jackson’s career timeline from the Southern Poverty Law Center (4/7/22) Watch on YouTube!

OA1186 - We continue our series on some of our favorite Warren-era Supreme Court decisions with the one Warren-era decision--and very likely the only Supreme Court decision that is still good law--that most people can name from memory. The desegregation of American schools in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954) stands today as one of the greatest moments of  justice in American legal history, but did you know that it was also an equally important moment for social science? Matt tees up the legal and historical context and Dr. Jenessa Seymour, Esq. brings her unique background as both a lawyer and a PhD in neuroscience to provide a singular perspective on the science behind Brown and what it has meant for both law and science in the 71 years since then. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954) Brown v. Board of Education: A Civil Rights Milestone and Its Troubled Legacy (Pivotal Moments in American History), James T. Patterson (2001)

OA1185 - The rule of law has never been put more to the test in this country, and we do our best to keep up with at least a few of the most important decent developments. We begin with a brief review of the current status of wrongfully-deported Salvadoran asylum seeker Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Why is the Trump administration desperately trying to re-deport this Central American man whom they already fully admit was deported to hell by mistake to… Uganda? Matt explains. Then: Did a federal judge really just shutter Florida’s “Alligator Alcatraz”? We consider the history of this surprisingly significant swampland and why an environmental challenge to its existence was so much easier to win than one based in due process, while also celebrating a major win for native rights. Another major presidential first this week: for the first time in US history, the President has claimed the authority to fire a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. Could this one decision really have global economic consequences? How much does it matter that Trump has done literally the one thing that the Supreme Court has ever told him *not* to do? We review some basics to try to understand the full magnitude of what this all means for our current moment before moving on to today’s footnote: an outstanding decision from a Virginia federal judge which should stand as a model for how the judiciary can stand up to American fascism. Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s Motion to Dismiss Based on Vindictive and Selective Prosecution Abrego Garcia habeas docket SCOTUS shadow docket order in Trump v. Wilcox (5/22/2025) Judge Williams’s order closing “Alligator Alcatraz” (8/21/2025) Order granting motion to dismiss in U.S. v. Russell (8/26/2025) Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

VR5 Part 2 - we continue our analysis of Ghislaine Maxwell's podcast interview on the Todd Blanche Experience. Make sure you caught part 1! Watch the video here! Complete enhanced audio of Ghislaine Maxwell's proffer session with DOJ deputy Todd Blanche on July 24-25, 2025 (Thomas's Version) Maxwell transcripts and source audio from DOJ US v Maxwell indictment

Due to unprecedented corruption not getting enough of a call out, Vapid Response has taken over the Monday slot this week! It's VR5 Part 1. The Trump administration's corruption of the US Department of Justice hit new depths last week when it released audio and transcripts from convicted Jeffrey Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell's so-called “proffer session” with current top DOJ deputy (and former Trump defense attorney) Todd Blanche. OA NYC bureau chief Liz Skeen joins to help us understand just how completely unprecedented everything about this interview and its public release have been, and we discuss why DOJ's flagrantly stupid efforts to minimize the President's well-known close ties with the most notorious sex trafficker in modern US history portends a new level of American authoritarianism. Watch the video here! Complete enhanced audio of Ghislaine Maxwell's proffer session with DOJ deputy Todd Blanche on July 24-25, 2025 (Thomas's Version) Maxwell transcripts and source audio from DOJ US v Maxwell indictment