By Lieutenant Robert Settembre

James T. Duane was born on December 20, 1885, in Johnstown, Pennsylvania. His father died attempting a rescue during a town flood. Soon after, his mother moved to New York City, where James went through high school. Finally settling in Clinton, Massachusetts, James pursued a career in theater and became known as an accomplished actor. He began to appear in plays with the likes of Hollywood legends such as Douglas Fairbanks.

In 1904, James Duane joined the Massachusetts National Guard as a member of Company K, 9th Regiment. Duane rose quickly through the military ranks these due to his leadership abilities. He was promoted to 1st Sergeant during the Mexican border conflict of 1916. He was mustered out in January 1917 and recalled as a private by July 1917. He was assigned to officers’ school in Plattsburg, New York, but asked and received a deferment to go to war when Company K sailed for France in September of 1917. He was promoted to Sergeant Major, then to 2nd Lieutenant. Following the battle of Chatau Thiery, he was promoted to 1st Lieutenant.

The promotions continued and at the battle of St. Michel, he was promoted to Captain. The following September, he became a Major and commanded two full battalions. During the war, James was gassed and wounded at the legendary battle of Verdun. He led many reconnaissance patrols and painfully witnessed his fellow soldiers fall in battle. Due to his bravery, he was awarded the Silver Star with two Clusters, the Purple Heart, five Major Battle Stars and was recommended seven times for the Distinguished Service Cross. To commemorate his experiences, he wrote a book about his unit entitled Dear Old K (Company K).

After the war, James Duane was not one to stay still for long. He was quickly elected as a delegate to the committee that went to Paris, France on March 15, 1919, which actually founded the American Legion. Due to his effort and tireless dedication, he was elected a lifelong member of the Society of American Legion founders. Mr. Duane was later appointed Assistant State Treasurer of Massachusetts and dispersed $20 million of bonus funds to World War I veterans. He opened a jewelry store and owned a dry goods business. James again pursued acting and headed his own theater troupe. On October 12, 1927, Mr. James Duane married the love of his life, Miss Margaret V. Walsh of Framingham, Massachusetts. Over a thousand friends, family and well-wishers as well as senators and other dignitaries attended the wedding.

On January 9, 1937, Mr. James Duane left Framingham with his young wife and three children (James Jr., Margaret, and Patricia), and took a slow train to the growing town of Phoenix to start a new life. He began his law enforcement career when he was hired as the Maricopa County Under Sheriff to Sheriff Lon Jordan in 1938.

He continued to be active in American Legion activities and served the American Legion in Phoenix. In 1942 and 1943, he served as the Commander of the Frank Luke/John Greenway American Legion Post #1 in Phoenix. He had served directly under John Greenway in World War I, and had met Frank Luke (and was listed as one of Luke’s witnesses to shooting down an enemy balloon) during his service in France.

Chief James Duane’s career with the Phoenix Police Department was launched in the heat of battle. On November 26, 1942, soldiers from the Army’s 364th infantry stationed at Papago Park were in Phoenix enjoying a night on the town. At that time, an offduty soldier struck a female over the head with a bottle. When an MP shot the soldier, a riot broke out (between 13th and 17th Streets, on Washington) that resulted in 3 deaths and 11 wounded by gunfire. This riot took place in the infamous part of town known as Red Light Row.

On November 30, 1942, Colonel Ross G. Hoyt, Commander of Luke Field, declared Phoenix out of bounds to Post personnel. Soon after, other commanders followed Hoyt’s lead. The riot may have been the final catalyst that resulted in the decision to declare the city out of bounds, but military leaders cited another reason. It was the growing concern for the venereal disease situation in Phoenix that had incapacitated many a soldier. The city now found itself in a position where it was losing the money the large military population was spending in town during the war years. In negotiations to lift the order, Colonel Hoyt stated, “The city will stay out of bounds until it has become untenable for prostitutes.”

Drastic action was needed and quickly taken. On December 17, 1942, a secret emergency meeting was held in the basement of the Adams Hotel. The Board of Directors of the Chamber of Commerce and other elected officials led it. The meeting went well into the night. There was a vote of no confidence taken on the City Manager, City Magistrate, and Chief of Police and they were quickly replaced. The new Phoenix Chief of Police to be appointed would be a highly decorated World War I veteran named Jim Duane.

On December 21, 1942, three days after the appointment of the new Chief of Police, Colonel Hoyt lifted the ban, stating that his decision was based on the fact that cases of venereal disease among his men had decreased. Chief Duane pursued a policy of “strict repression against those involved in professional prostitution.” This was actually a risky political position in a town long known for its reputation of acceptance of prostitution with the blessing from the citizens and city government alike. Nonetheless, arrests and convictions increased under his administration.

Chief Duane was appointed under City Manager Roy Heyne. When Heyne was forced out of office a month later, Chief Duane resigned from his position. He was reinstated as Chief on May 1, 1943, following a city election. He remained in the position until May 1, 1946. For this time period, this was quite an accomplishment for a department that rarely had a Chief hold a position for over a year.

Chief Duane put in many hours as Chief of Police. The war years started a growth in Phoenix that continues to this day. These were trying times for the city as well as the Police Department. Chief Duane’s son remembered that his father had to fire several detectives who were involved in prostitution activities that included rolling (robbing) soldiers. One of the more infamous incidents that occurred during Chief Duane’s administration was a sad and dark day in our history. On May 5, 1944, Phoenix Officer Starr Johnson conducted a traffic stop at 6:30 PM at 2nd Street and Jefferson. He had stopped offduty Phoenix Detective Frenchie Navarre. After an argument, Navarre shot and killed Officer Johnson. Navarre was reinstated to the Department after a jury found him innocent of murder charges.

On October 4, 1944, Starr Johnson’s partner, Officer Joe Davis, took revenge of his friend’s murder. Officer Davis shot and killed Detective Navarre in the police station at 17 South 2nd Avenue. Officer Davis then went to the top floor and took the jailer hostage. Chief Duane quickly responded to the hectic scene. He encountered Officer Davis half way on the staircase, where he was disarmed. In 1946, Chief Duane resigned as chief, when he was elected the State Department Adjutant to the American Legion. Chief Duane held this position for the remainder of his life. He passed away on January 27, 1951, after losing an extended battle with cancer. He was eulogized in Phoenix and Massachusetts newspapers. His service as the Phoenix Chief of Police was listed as one of his many accomplishments and contributions to his country.

Those who remember Chief Duane remember him with reverence, respect, and admiration. Two retired detectives Glenn Martin, #70 (hired 1943) and Lieutenant Ed Langevin, #81 (hired 1945) were personally hired by Chief Duane. They remember how challenging his position was when he spoke to them about the Department on the day they were hired. Chief Duane told them they would encounter a majority of good, dedicated officers. He also bluntly told them they would encounter a few bad seeds that had been around for a longtime. He said that if they intended to have a successful career, they would have to model themselves after the good officers. The Department was a challenging place to run in those days and is still challenging today. The leadership ability he developed in life was an asset that allowed him to leave his mark in our history. By the time Jim Duane retired as Chief of Police, he had faced many struggles and challenges, but was no stranger to leadership.

Case Summary - Miranda v. Arizona

Facts

The Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona addressed four different cases involving custodial interrogations. In each of these cases, the defendant was questioned by police officers, detectives, or a prosecuting attorney in a room in which he was cut off from the outside world. In none of these cases was the defendant given a full and effective warning of his rights at the outset of the interrogation process. In all the cases, the questioning elicited oral admissions and, in three of them, signed statements that were admitted at trial.

Miranda v. Arizona: Miranda was arrested at his home and taken in custody to a police station where he was identified by the complaining witness. He was then interrogated by two police officers for two hours, which resulted in a signed, written confession. At trial, the oral and written confessions were presented to the jury. Miranda was found guilty of kidnapping and rape and was sentenced to 20-30 years imprisonment on each count. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona held that Miranda’s constitutional rights were not violated in obtaining the confession.
Vignera v. New York: Vignera was picked up by New York police in connection with the robbery of a dress shop that had occurred three days prior. He was first taken to the 17th Detective Squad headquarters. He was then taken to the 66th Detective Squad, where he orally admitted the robbery and was placed under formal arrest. He was then taken to the 70th Precinct for detention, where he was questioned by an assistant district attorney in the presence of a hearing reporter who transcribed the questions and answers. At trial, the oral confession and the transcript were presented to the jury. Vignera was found guilty of first degree robbery and sentenced to 30-60 years imprisonment. The conviction was affirmed without opinion by the Appellate Division and the Court of Appeals.
Westover v. United States: Westover was arrested by local police in Kansas City as a suspect in two Kansas City robberies and taken to a local police station. A report was also received from the FBI that Westover was wanted on a felony charge in California. Westover was interrogated the night of the arrest and the next morning by local police. Then, FBI agents continued the interrogation at the station. After two-and-a-half hours of interrogation by the FBI, Westover signed separate confessions, which had been prepared by one of the agents during the interrogation, to each of the two robberies in California. These statements were introduced at trial. Westover was convicted of the California robberies and sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment on each count. The conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
California v. Stewart: In the course of investigating a series of purse-snatch robberies in which one of the victims died of injuries inflicted by her assailant, Stewart was identified as the endorser of checks stolen in one of the robberies. Steward was arrested at his home. Police also arrested Stewart’s wife and three other people who were visiting him. Stewart was placed in a cell, and, over the next five days, was interrogated on nine different occasions. During the ninth interrogation session, Stewart stated that he had robbed the deceased, but had not meant to hurt her. At that time, police released the four other people arrested with Stewart because there was no evidence to connect any of them with the crime. At trial, Stewart’s statements were introduced. Stewart was convicted of robbery and first-degree murder and sentenced to death. The Supreme Court of California reversed, holding that Stewart should have been advised of his right to remain silent and his right to counsel.

Issues

Whether “statements obtained from an individual who is subjected to custodial police interrogation” are admissible against him in a criminal trial and whether “procedures which assure that the individual is accorded his privilege under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution not to be compelled to incriminate himself” are necessary.

Supreme Court holding

The Court held that “there can be no doubt that the Fifth Amendment privilege is available outside of criminal court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way from being compelled to incriminate themselves.” As such, “the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.” The Court further held that “without proper safeguards the process of in-custody interrogation of persons suspected or accused of crime contains inherently compelling pressures which work to undermine the individual’s will to resist and to compel him to speak where he would otherwise do so freely.” Therefore, a defendant “must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.” The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Arizona in Miranda, reversed the judgment of the New York Court of Appeals in Vignera, reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Westover, and affirmed the judgment of the Supreme Court of California in Stewart. Argued: Feb. 28, March 1 and 2, 1966 Decided: June 13, 1966 Vote: 5-4 Majority opinion written by Chief Justice Warren and joined by Justices Black, Douglas, Brennan, and Fortas. Dissenting opinion written by Justice Harlan and joined by Justices Stewart and White. Dissenting in part opinion written by Justice Clark.

Follow-Up

Miranda v. Arizona: After Miranda’s conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court, the State of Arizona retried him. At the second trial, Miranda’s confession was not introduced into evidence. Miranda was once again convicted and sentenced to 20-30 years in prison.

Miranda

Recently, representatives of the Phoenix Police Museum had the opportunity to interview Carroll Colley, the detective assigned to the rape case that resulted in the Miranda Decision. This article is based on that interview and a written account from the AZPOST. Since the Court’s 1966 decision requiring the Miranda warnings, much has been written on the case’s judicial points; however, even police officers and attorneys who work with the results of the decision know few of the details of the actual crime and investigation. Miranda’s story began over a dozen years before his untimely death, in the downtown skid row section of Phoenix, Arizona, only a few blocks from where it ended. It is presented here by the police officer who made the investigation and arrest, and took the confession later ruled inadmissible as evidence by the U.S. Supreme Court. The crime involved a shy 18-year-old woman who had just finished her shift at the Paramount Theater in downtown Phoenix, Arizona, on March 2, 1963 at 11:45 pm. She boarded a bus for home located in northeast Phoenix. She exited the bus at 7^th Street and East Marlette. She had just started the 5-block walk home when a car pulled slowly from behind and stopped just in front of her. The suspect got out of the car and grabbed her, pressing a sharp object against her throat. He ordered, “Don’t scream, don’t scream and you won’t get hurt.” He forced her into the back seat of the car and tied her wrists and ankles with rope. He drove off as she cried and begged him to let her go. He would only respond,”Be quiet. Just be quiet and I won’t hurt you." Twenty minutes later, he arrived in a deserted area northeast of the city and raped the young victim. He then stole four dollars from the victim and turned to her stating, “Whether you tell your mother what happened or not is none of my business, but pray for me.” He drove her back to town where she ran to the home of a family member to report the crime. Uniformed officers responded and took the necessary reports and contacted detectives who took the initial report. The next morning, a 5-year veteran in the Crimes against Persons Detail, 27-year old Detective Carroll Cooley, was assigned to investigate this rape case. Cooley began with a routine interview with the victim who provided a description of a Mexican or Italian male with dark curly hair, combed back, about 25 years old, of average height and build wearing a white t-shirt and blue jeans. She stated the car was an old 4-door sedan, light green with light beige upholstery with vertical stripes, paint brushes on the floor and the smell of turpentine in the car. The investigation produced few results. A week passed with no substantial leads or possible suspects. Detectives checked marked similarity between the victim’s description and those of other attacks in Downtown Phoenix. The victim continued to work at her job but now had a family relative meet her at the bus stop to walk her home. A week after the attack, while waiting to walk the victim home, the male relative saw an old light-colored sedan with a single occupant drive slowly back and forth by the bus stop several times. He noted a license number of DFL-317. When the victim stepped off the bus he pointed to the car parked on the dark side street to see if that could be the suspect’s car. They walked towards the car and the victim thought it might be the same one, but the driver started the car and sped away. The male relative called the police who discovered the plate was registered to a 1958 Oldsmobile; however, the relative was sure it was a 1953 Packard. On March 11, Detective Cooley learned the male relative was unsure of the numbers of the plate but was sure of the letters DFL. Detective Cooley had MVD pull all their records on all Packard’s with the license numbers beginning with the DFL prefix. He found one registered in Mesa just one digit off from the number reported by the male relative. The next day Detectives Cooley and Young drove to the address of the registered owner, Twila Hoffman. The home was vacant, but neighbors stated the people who had lived there were Ernest Miranda and his wife, Twila. They had moved out a few days earlier. The neighbors noted that they used a truck marked “United Produce” to haul their items away. The detectives checked Miranda’s name with Mesa Police Department and learned he matched the suspect description. They also learned he had a juvenile record of assault with intent to commit rape in 1956, a juvenile arrest in Los Angels, California for robbery in 1957, as well as an arrest and conviction for auto theft in Tennessee in 1959 that resulted in a one-year sentence to federal prison. The detectives returned to downtown Phoenix and stopped at the United Produce Company where they learned that Ernest Miranda was employed there as a dockworker on the evening shift. United Produce did not have Miranda's home address, but they knew he had just moved. They had loaned him one of their trucks to move his family from Mesa to Phoenix. On Wednesday, March 13, the detectives continued their investigation by going to the downtown Phoenix Post Office to see if Miranda filed a change of address card. Their efforts paid off and they had his updated address. The detectives went to his address on West Mariposa and drove up to see a light grey 1953 Packard parked in the driveway with a plate of DFL-312. Cooley noted the interior matched the description provided by the victim. A woman, Twilla Hoffman, answered the door. She explained Miranda was asleep and went to awaken him. Several minutes later Miranda came to the door and the Detectives asked if he would come down to the police station so they could talk to him. Miranda agreed to go to the station and rode in the back seat of the car unrestrained and not under arrest. At the main police station, Miranda was taken to the Detective bureau and placed in the interview room with a two-way mirror for viewing line-ups. Detective Cooley began the interview. He explained to Miranda that another victim identified his license plate as being involved in the crime. Miranda denied knowing anything about the incident and claimed to be working that night at United Produce. Cooley continued taking with Miranda for over thirty minutes and his past record for assault. He stated that that Miranda may need psychiatric help and was the suspect in these cases. Miranda insisted he was innocent. Detective Cooley asked Miranda if he would consent to being viewed by the victims in a line-up with several other men of his general description. He agreed after the officers told him they would take him home if none of the victims could identify him. Detective Young brought in three prisoners form the City Jail to stand in the line-up while Cooley began to locate the victims. Only two victims could be located on a short notice. The victims arrived at the station shortly before 11:30 am. Miranda was told he could choose his position in the line by selecting one of the four large numbered cards that would be worn around their necks for identification. He chose #1, the first position in line. The victims were unable to positively identify the suspect. One victim believed that if she would hear his voice she might be sure. Cooley went in and told Miranda that he was identified by the victims. At that time Miranda responded, “Well, I guess I’d better tell you about it then.” Miranda confessed to both crimes and to using a nail file to conduct the assaults. The detectives asked if he would give them a written stated as to his actions. He agreed and was given a standard form. He written confession covered one kidnapping/rape/robbery of the 18-year old victim. Since attempted rape could not be established in the other case it would be the responsibly of the robbery detail and they did not want to risk jeopardizing Miranda’s successful prosecution by opening his written confession to attack because of the mention of other, unrelated crimes. After completing the statement, the first victim was brought into the room and Miranda was asked to state his name and if he recognized the women. He stated his name and said he did recognize her. After leaving the room, the victim stated she was positive Miranda was the man who raped her. She was sure the moment he spoke. The same occurred with the second victim. Det. Cooley told Miranda that he was under arrest for kidnap, rape and robbery and was handcuffed and booked in the fourth floor city jail. The detectives didn’t consider Miranda to be under arrest until this time. Prior to his verbal admissions, they would have had difficulty justifying holding Miranda if he had demanded that they either charge or release him. He was tried in Superior Court on June 18-19, 1963 based on the face -to- face identification, and part of his verbal confession was admitted as evidence. He was convicted and sentenced to 20-25 years on one incident in the Arizona State Prison at Florence. The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, assuming the arrest to have been made at Miranda’s home. Within a week, he was tried on the second incident and was sentenced to 20-30 years in Arizona State Prison. Two years later a court appointed lawyer appealed the case to Arizona Supreme Court. He charged that Miranda’s constitutional right to legal counsel in one case was denied. The court ruled that since Miranda hadn’t asked for an attorney to assist or represent him at the time police questioned him, and since there was no legal requirement that he had to be advised of his rights to such counsel, the conviction would be upheld. After the failed appeal, John J. Flynn, agreed to try to have the case reviewed by the US Supreme Court at the request of the American Civil Liberties Union. The court agreed to a review in October 1965. The U.S. Supreme court reviewed three other cases that involved the same type of issues at the same time. The resulting decision was actually based on the Court’s review of all four cases, however, since Miranda vs. Arizona was the first case listed, if became generally know of as "The Miranda Decision." The U.S. Supreme Court returned the case to Maricopa County Superior court for retrial. Miranda’s conviction in the first original trial was not included in the appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court; therefore, the court's ruling was not applicable to that case. He still faced a 25-year prison sentence regardless of the outcome of his new trial. The other case was tried and the judge ruled that the victim’s s identification of Miranda was inadmissible on grounds that she had not been completely positive when she initially viewed the line-up. However, the jury found him guilty a second time and again the conviction was based heavily of his own admission and confession. He was sent to Arizona State Prison to serve both sentences concurrently. He remained there until paroled on April 28, 1975. The story did not end there. Miranda began hanging out at the old “duce”, the downtown Phoenix area where wholesale produce markets were once the hub of the area's commercial activity. He made money selling Police Miranda warning cards which he would autograph for a dollar. But his life ended on January 31, 1976 shortly after 6pm at the Amapola Bar at 233 South Second Street. He was playing cards in the bar with two other individuals. A fight erupted and Miranda was stabbed in the chest with a long bladed knife. The suspect was later located and read his Miranda rights for the murder of Earnest Miranda. The circle was completed; the victim becomes the suspect and his own original case influenced the interview of the suspect that killed him.

Follow Us

Google Reviews

Yelp Reviews

TripAdvisor Reviews

Case Summary - Miranda v. Arizona

Facts

Issues

Supreme Court holding

Follow-Up

Miranda

Login here...

Museum Closure

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Museum Temporary Closure Every Thursday Until Further Notice

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Pin It on Pinterest

Chief James Duane

By Lieutenant Robert Settembre

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Follow Us

Google Reviews

Yelp Reviews

TripAdvisor Reviews

Case Summary - Miranda v. Arizona

Facts

Issues

Supreme Court holding

Follow-Up

Miranda

Login here...

Museum Closure

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Museum Temporary Closure Every Thursday Until Further Notice

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Pin It on Pinterest