No one will accuse McClatchey of being a mouthpiece for the right. I would have expected them to be among the first with a “Ricci had DUI in 1989″ story. Instead they hung People for the American Way out to dry. Good on them.

The Huff Po’s and Kos’ of the world will do what they’re going to do. But any “news” organization that participates in any smear of Ricci should be boycotted and any Senator that does the same should be targeted.

Sotomayor and Obama both should let it be known that Ricci is off limits. Yeah, I know, dream on.

The Miranda decision, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), is a liberal icon and often held up by them as a golden example of the good that a courageous and proactive court can do. Remember, Miranda held that a confession is inadmissible into evidence against an accused unless, after being first informed that he has the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney, the accused knowingly and voluntarily waives those rights before he confesses.

Miranda’s case was reviewed by the Arizona Supreme Court which found no error and the U.S. Supreme Court which held that the only error was to admit the confession into evidence. There is not a scintilla of evidence that he was coerced in any way or that his confession was not fully voluntary. Miranda’s attorneys never claimed otherwise.

Following PFAW reasoning in the Ricci case, they must also believe that Miranda was wrongly decided because Mr. Miranda was a “bad” person. To bring this home to the good people at PFAW, we need to remind them of Mr. Miranda’s crime.

“The facts, as they relate to the defense as charged under Counts I and II in the instant case are as follows: On March 3, 1963, the complaining witness-a girl eighteen years of age-had been working in the concession stand at the Paramount Theatre in downtown Phoenix, and had taken the bus to 7th Street and Marlette. After getting off the bus, she had started to walk toward her home. She observed a car, which afterwards proved to be [Miranda’s], which had been parked behind the ballet school on Marlette. The car pulled out of the lot, and came so close to her that she had to jump back to prevent being hit. It then parked across from some apartments in the same block. [Miranda] then left his car, walked toward her, and grabbed her. He told her not to scream, that he would not hurt her. He held her hands behind her back, put a hand over her mouth, and pulled her toward the car. He put her in the back seat, tied her hands and feet, and put a sharp thing to her neck and said to her ‘Feel this.’ She stated it all happened so suddenly that she did not have time to do anything. [Miranda] was unknown to the complaining witness. She had not seen him before, and he was not related to her in any way.

He then drove the car for about twenty minutes, during which time complaining witness was lying in the back seat crying. When [Miranda] stopped the car, he came to the back seat, and untied her hands and feet. He told her to pull off her clothes. She said ‘no,’ whereupon he started to remove them. She tried to push away from him, but he proceeded to remove her clothing. And, then, after one unsuccessful attempt, made a successful sexual penetration, while she pushed with her hands and was screaming. She testified: ‘I was pushing against him with my hands. I kept screaming, I was trying to get away but he was a lot stronger than I was, and I couldn’t do anything.’

He then drove her to 12th Street and Rose Lane, during which time she dressed. She ran home, and told her family, who called the police. Her sister testified that the complaining witness came home that morning crying and looking as if she had been in a fight. On March 13, 1963, [Miranda] was apprehended by the police. The officers who picked him up both testified that he was put into the ‘line-up’ and was identified by complaining witness. Thereafter he confessed that he had forced complaining witness into his car, drove away with her, and raped her. After these statements he signed a statement, partly typed and partly in his own handwriting, which was substantially to the same effect as the testimony of the officers. [Miranda] offered no evidence in his defense at the trial of his case.”

State v. Miranda, 98 Ariz. 18, 401 P.2d 721 (1965).