Miranda's Victim (2023)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Miranda’s Victim is a historical drama (based on a true story) which premiered in 2023.

 

Since this drama is based on a true story, the basic facts are part of the historical record. They are not a secret. This is why I feel free to mention some of them here.

 

While this historical drama is based on a true story, it is not a documentary film. It is a dramatized version of events.

 

Some details may have been added, altered or excluded for dramatic reasons or for practical purposes. But the basic story is true.

 

Who is Miranda’s victim? Miranda’s victim was a young woman who lived in Phoenix, Arizona. In 1963, she was kidnapped and raped by Ernesto Miranda.

 

The name of the young woman was not released to the public. Only her age was revealed.  She was 18 years old. But her name was a deep secret.

 

It remained a deep secret until 2021, when George Kolber found the woman who was Miranda’s victim in 1963. Her name is Patricia (Trish) Weir.

 

George Kolber found her. He met with her and he talked to her about the time when she was kidnapped and raped by Ernesto Miranda.

 

After this talk, she allowed him to tell her story and to use her name in a historical drama of which he would be the producer.

 

Here is some basic information about this drama:

 

** Producer: George Kolber

** Director: Michelle Danner

** Writer: J. Craig Stiles

** Run time: 127 minutes

 

The cast includes the following:

 

The first group

** Abigail Breslin as Patricia (Trish) Weir – the victim

** Emily VanCamp as Ann Weir – her older sister

** Mireille Enos as Zeola Weir – her mother

 

The second group

** Enrique Murciano as Carroll Cooley – a police officer

** Brent Sexton as sergeant Nealis – a police officer

** Sebastian Quinn as Ernesto Miranda – a truck driver - the perpetrator

** Taryn Manning as Twila Hoffman – Ernesto’s wife (actually Ernesto’s girlfriend)

 

The third group

** Luke Wilson as Lawrence Turoff – a prosecutor

** Andy Garcia as Alvin Moore – a lawyer – Miranda’s defense lawyer

** Ryan Philippe as John Flynn – a lawyer – Miranda’s defense lawyer

** Donald Sutherland as Laurance T. Wren – a judge

** Kyle MacLachlan as Earl Warren – Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court

 

Patricia (Trish) Weir worked at a movie theater. When the last show was over, she would take a bus and get off at a bus stop not far from her home.

 

On the fateful day in March 1963, she got on a bus at 11 PM. When the bus reached her bus stop at 11.30 PM, Trish got off and began to walk towards her home.

 

The truck driver Ernesto Miranda had parked his car behind the bus stop. He was sitting in his car, waiting to see if a “suitable victim” got off the bus. 

 

When he saw Trish approaching his car, he got out and grabbed her. He pushed her into his car and tied her with a rope. 

 

There were no witnesses. The bus had already left the bus stop. The place was deserted, because it was the middle of the night.

 

Miranda drove his car into the desert where he raped her. When he had done what he wanted, he drove the car back to the bus stop, pushed her out of the car and drove away.

 

When Trish finally managed to get home, it was very late. She met her mother and her sister, who could see that she was devastated.

 

Trish told them what had happened. She said she wanted to report the case to the police.

 

Her mother objected to this plan: Don’t do it! Nobody will believe you! Even if they believe you, this is not going to help you!

 

Her mother warned her: no man will marry a woman who has been raped! Do not destroy your life like this!

 

But her older sister Ann supported her, and the next day they went to the local police station where Trish told her story to detective Carroll Cooley.

 

Contrary to what her mother had predicted, detective Cooley believed Trish when she told her story.

 

The detective said he wanted to find the perpetrator. He asked her: Can you tell us some more details so we can find him?

 

Sadly, Trish was not able to offer many details. She said had been tied with a rope and that the perpetrator wore glasses. She did not see him clearly, because it was dark, but she heard him speak.

 

One week later, Patricia’s brother, who had been told what had happened, decided to go to the bus stop around midnight in order to see what was happening.

 

He had an idea. Perhaps the perpetrator was going to repeat his performance with a new victim?

 

He was lucky:

 

Ernesto Miranda rolled up and parked his car not far from the bus stop. As the brother walked towards the car, Miranda realised that he had been spotted.

 

He started the car and drove away as fast as he could, but the brother was able to see what kind of car he was driving and to read the license plate.

 

The next day, Trish and her family went to the police station to report what they had discovered. This information was very helpful.

 

Using the information about the car and the license plate, the police could see that this car was registered to a woman whose name was Twila Hoffman.

 

Police officer Cooley and his colleague sergeant Nealis drove to the address where Twila Hoffman lived. She was at home. The police officers asked her:

 

Do you have a car? Yes. Does another person sometimes drive your car? Yes. Her husband Ernesto Miranda. Is he at home? Yes, but he is sleeping. Please wake him up. We want to talk to him.

 

Now the police officers had a suspect. 

 

They invited him to come down to the police station and talk to them about a case. Miranda accepted. He got in the car. When they came to the police station, they began to talk to him about his job and what he did in his free time.

 

They did not beat him up. The did not interrogate him for hours and hours without a break. They talked to him about this and that. After a while, he admitted that he had picked up Trish one week before and taken her to the desert.

 

Cooley said to him: here is some paper and a pen. Please write down what you just told me and my colleague.

 

Miranda wrote everything down. 

 

Now Cooley and his colleague had a confession.

 

Trish was asked to come down to the police station to observe a line-up of potential criminals. Miranda and three other persons were in the line-up. 

 

Trish said: Can I see them with glasses on? When Miranda put on his glasses, she identified him as the perpetrator. She also asked if she could hear him speak. She might be able to recognise his voice.

 

They placed her in a position where Miranda could not see her and they had a brief talk with Miranda. Trish said: He is the one. It is him!

 

Eyewitness identification is often unreliable, but in this case, there was no doubt: Trish had picked the right man when she saw him and when she heard his voice.

 

The prosecutor said he had enough to charge Miranda and the case was tried in a court of law.

 

This case, which took place in 1963, was the first of three trials which involved Miranda in some way.

 

The prosecutor believed he had a strong case. The perpetrator had been identified by the victim and he had written and signed a confession.

 

Miranda’s lawyer told Miranda that he did not have to worry. The eyewitness identification was not convincing and the confession had been made under duress.

 

The defense lawyer hoped he could get the judge to throw it out. Once the confession was out, he was sure he could win the case and secure a verdict of not guilty.

 

But when he tried to get rid of the confession, he failed. The judge said the confession was admissible evidence.

 

The prosecutor won the case. Miranda was found guilty. His sentence was 20-30 years in prison.

 

But this was only the beginning of the story about Miranda and his victim.

 

Once the case of 1963 was over and Miranda was placed in prison, the civil rights organization ACLU began to take an interest in the case.

 

They felt that something had gone wrong in the case against Ernesto Miranda. They had two questions:

 

# 1. Before the interrogation of Miranda began, did the police officers tell him that he had the right to remain silent?

 

The answer was no.

 

# 2. Before the interrogation of Miranda began, did the police officers tell him that he had the right to an attorney who could speak for him?

 

Again, the answer was no.

 

Based on these two points, ACLU wanted to appeal the conviction of Miranda.

 

According to ACLU, Miranda’s constitutional rights had been violated, because he had not been properly prepared for the interrogation.

 

The case was appealed and in 1966 it came before the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC. This was the second trial which involved Miranda in some way.

 

The Supreme Court issued a ruling in the case of Miranda. Chief Justice Earl Warren read the ruling which was supported by five justices and opposed by four.

 

The Supreme Court made two points:

 

# 1. Miranda’s constitutional rights had been violated, as argued by John Flynn, the lawyer who was working for the ACLU.

 

Miranda had not been told that he had the right to remain silent and that he had the right to an attorney.

 

# 2. The verdict of 1963 was overturned. The state of Arizona had to give Miranda a new trial as soon as possible, and in this new trial the old confession from 1963 could not be used as evidence.

 

As soon as the verdict was announced, police officers all over the USA were told that they would have to abide by the new rule.

 

Before you start interviewing a suspect, you must inform the suspect of his or her rights.

 

A new term was introduced into the legal language: you must inform the suspect of his or her Miranda rights.

 

In 1967, a new trial was held in Arizona. It was the third and final trial which involved Miranda in some way.

 

** In 1963, during the first trial, he was the defendant

 

** In 1966, during the second trial, he was suing the state of Arizona

 

** In 1967, during the third and final trial, he was once again the defendant

 

When this trial began, the prosecutor was not so sure he could win the case. This time, the old confession could not be used and the identification of the perpetrator was four years in the past. Perhaps it was not strong enough to be convincing.

 

But then something unexpected happened. Miranda’s wife, who was now his ex-wife, showed up. She had some information she wanted to tell the prosecution.

 

While Miranda was in prison, she had visited him. During this visit, he had told her that he was the one who had kidnapped and raped Trish back in 1963.

 

This new confession was just what the prosecutor needed to win his case. The old confession was out, but this did not matter, because now there was a new confession.

 

Was the new confession admissible in court? According to the judge, the answer was yes.

 

Twila Hoffman had previously been presented as Miranda’s wife, but this was not quite correct.

 

They were never married. She was his girlfriend. As a girlfriend and not a wife, her testimony was allowed to be presented in court.

 

Once more, Miranda was found guilty. Once more, his sentence was 20-30 years in prison, but he never served the whole sentence.

 

In 1972, he was released on parole. But his life was not going well. He was arrested for possession of a gun. The charges were dropped, but since he had violated the conditions of his parole, he was sent back to prison. After one more year in prison, he was released again.

 

In 1976, he became involved in a fight in a bar in Phoenix, Arizona. During this fight, he was stabbed by a knife. It was serious. He was rushed to a hospital. But it was too late. When he arrived at the hospital, he was pronounced dead.

 

In this historical drama, we follow the case of Ernesto Miranda from 1963 to 1967.

 

We also follow the life of Patricia (Trish) Weir and the lives of the people around her, especially her mother and her older sister Ann.

 

What do reviewers say about this drama?

 

Here are some results:

 

66 percent = IMDb

77 percent = Rotten Tomatoes (the critics)

98 percent = Rotten Tomatoes (the audience)

 

18 user reviews are posted on IMDb. All reviews except one offer a specific rating.

 

Here are the headlines and the ratings offered by the 17 reviews (minor typos have been corrected):

 

50 = An important but rather bland movie

60 = Sorry… disappointing

70 = Emotional history

 

90 = The emotional heft is strong throughout the entire film. Get your tissues ready

90 = Impactful movie

90 = A must see for all!

 

100 = A must-see movie!

100 = An important film

100 = Incredible balanced way of telling an untold story

100 = Impactful!

100 = Important work

100 = Masterfully created

100 = Very powerful film

100 = Great movie – Highly recommended

100 = Must see film. Terrific cast and educational

100 = Remarkable storytelling with a unique balance

100 = A bit of history

 

On Amazon there are at the moment 90 ratings of this product; 17 with reviews.

 

The average rating is 4.6 stars, which corresponds to a rating of 92 percent.

 

As you can see, the ratings are quite good. I understand the numerous positive reviews and I agree with them.

 

I want to go all the way to the top with this product. I think it deserves a rating of five stars (100 percent).

 

PS. In the drama, detective Cooley’s colleague in the Arizona police is presented as sergeant Nealis. But the real name of his colleague is Wilfred Young.

 

I do not know why this name has been changed. As far as I know, all other names used in this drama are real names.

 

Some biographical notes

What happened to the characters who were involved in this drama?

 

** Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court Earl Warren (born 1891) died in 1974

** The perpetrator Ernesto Miranda (born 1941) died in 1976

** Lawyer John Flynn died in 1980 at the age of 55

** Lawyer Alvin Moore died in 1982 at the age of 91

** Judge Laurance T. Wren died in 1982 at the age of 56

** Prosecutor Lawrence Turoff (born 1932) died in 2018

** Detective Carroll Cooley died in 2023 at the age of 87

 

REFERENCES

 

Miranda:

The Story of America’s Right to Remain Silent

By Gary L. Stuart

(2004 = hardcover)

(2008 = paperback)

 

Miranda V. Arizona:

The Rights of the Accused

By Michael Burgan

(2006)

 

Miranda Rights

By Paul Ruschmann

(2007)

 

The Miranda Ruling:

Its Past, Present, and Future

By Lawrence S. Wrightsman and Mary L. Pitman

(2010)

 

*****

Ernesto Miranda

(1941-1976)

The man who kidnapped and raped 

Patricia (Trish) Weir in 1963

 

*****