People v. Stewart, 1965: How anti-cop hysteria and ex post facto judicial activism betrayed a dead woman—and freed her murderer

All the evidence and witnesses pointed to Roy Allen Stewart. But when Stewart confessed to beating and robbing all those women, one of whom died—the police broke the law. This was the opinion of the Supreme Court of California in the 1965 court case People v. Stewart (62 Cal. 2d 571). The court declared that the interrogation of Stewart in 1963 was illegal—because the police failed to tell Stewart that he had a constitutional right no to admit that he had beaten and robbed women, and killed a woman.

The “civil rights era”—

It was the 1960’s, and whorish politicians, journalists, and activists—seeking power and control—had frightened and deceived many citizens into an anti-cop hysteria. As a result, plenty stunningly unjust people considered many violent black criminals—like Roy Allen Stewart—to be victims.

“A year after Stewart confessed to robbery and murder, the United States Supreme Court decided that a Mexican named Danny Escobedo didn’t murder his brother-in-law—because the police didn’t tell Escobedo that he didn’t have to confess to the murder that he committed. But when Stewart confessed a year before that, the cops did not have the Escobedo case as a legal precedent, so the cops could not have known that they must provide murderers with legal counsel—therefore the police violated Stewart’s right to receive legal counsel from police after murdering that lady.”

Yes. That was the reasoning of California’s Supreme Court. The court’s reasoning, as it fits with established constitutional law:

“If you convict someone of a crime for a past act that was not a crime when they acted—that’s called an “ex post facto law,” which the Constitution specifically forbids (in article 1, section 9). But if justly conducted police-work that caught a murderer is overturned, because—a year later—some judges invented the requirement that cops must counsel criminals: that’s not ex post facto—that’s progressive justice.”

Appeal to United States Supreme Court—

Then the prosecutors in California appealed People v. Stewart to the United States Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court combined California v. Stewart with three other cases. In one of those cases, defense attorneys were appealing the Arizona Supreme Court’s failure to uphold the right of a kidnapping rapist to receive legal counsel from police—about his right to pretend he did not kidnap that 18-year-old and force himself inside her, over and over, as she cried, bled—and begged for him to stop.

In 1966, the United States Supreme Court decided the combined court cases. The Court ruled that, nationwide, criminals have a right to free legal counsel from cops. The decision affirmed the California Supreme Court’s decision to consider Roy Allen Stewart not a mugger and murder—but rather a victim. And the decision overturned Arizona’s Supreme Court—so Ernesto Miranda was no longer a kidnapping rapist: he was a victim too—a victim of cops not “reading him his rights.” So now, thanks to kidnapping rapist Ernesto Miranda, we have “Miranda rights,” brought to you by a black murderer, a Mexican rapist—and the mean ole cops who racistly failed to provide legal counsel to the murderer and rapist.

Plot twist: the Mexican raped a Mexican, and the black murdered a black.


Ernesto Miranda was re-tried for kidnapping and rape. Even without the confession, all the other evidence secured Miranda’s conviction. He was sentence to 20-30 years for kidnap and rape. Heroic Mexican-rapist-rights activists paroled Miranda five years into his sentence—and he was murdered in a bar-right two years later, after several other run-ins with evil kkkops.

Roy Allen Stewart became a civil rights icon in the fight against police-brutality in AmeriKKKa—then was found a few years later, dead: face down in the swimming pool of his mansion—his body full of every narcotic a hero could shoot, snort, or swallow. Just kidding: that was actually the fate of Rodney King—the heroic PCP addict, who led police on a 100-mph chase and mauled a half-dozen cops, before being hit a few times with nightsticks. The video of that arrest sparked the 1992 L.A. riots, where black people rampaged through the streets, attacking random, unsuspecting white people—because black people love justice (strangely the heroically violent “protesters” left alone the Korean shopkeepers who were famously armed and ready to protect themselves).

Three years later, many of those same black, justice-loving rioters were back out in the L.A. streets—this time to jump up and down cheering joyfully at the fact that clearly-guilty OJ Simpson was acquitted of damn-near cutting off his white wife’s head. The celebrating blacks saw the acquittal as justice, because during the trial, it was revealed that—at some point in his life—one of the cops had said “nigger.” Anyhow, as to Roy Allen Stewart: he faded out of public consciousness—probably became a rocket scientist or something, like that ball-bouncing genius black kid in the movie Finding Forrester.

And one sliver of Justice Harlan’s dissent against the corrupt ruling in Miranda v. Arizona reminds of all you need to know about “Miranda Rights” as a check against real or faked police brutality and corruption:

The new rules [cannot possibly] guard against police brutality or other unmistakably banned forms of coercion. [After all, cops] who use [brutal] tactics and deny them in court are equally able and destined to lie as skillfully about warnings and waivers.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 505 (1966).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s