Explosion at Boston Marathon

[Judge Jude]

Miranda rights aren't in the Constitution

they only go back to the 1960s (I remember it came up in some old "Dragnet" TV reruns)

and there IS a public safety exception

one can debate if this qualifies; I'd want more details

[Hornsby]

Miranda rights aren't in the Constitution

they only go back to the 1960s (I remember it came up in some old "Dragnet" TV reruns)

and there IS a public safety exception

one can debate if this qualifies; I'd want more details

Essentially, they are, part of the 5th amendment, the right against self incrimination. The Supreme court ruled on it back in 1966...

The Constitution reserves many rights for those suspected of crime. One of the fears of the Framers was that the government could act however it wished by simply saying an individual was a suspected criminal. Many of the rights in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, such as habeas corpus, the right to remain silent, and the right to an attorney, are designed to ensure that those accused of a crime are assured of those rights.

Police were able to take advantage of the fact that not everyone knows their rights by heart. In fact, it is likely that most citizens could name a few of their rights as accused criminals, but not all of them. The police's position was that if the accused, for example, spoke about a crime without knowing that they did not need to, that it was the person's fault for not invoking that right, even if they did not know, or did not remember, that they had that right.

This was the crux of the issue in Miranda v Arizona. In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was accused of kidnapping and raping an 18-year-old, mildly retarded woman. He was brought in for questioning, and confessed to the crime. He was not told that he did not have to speak or that he could have a lawyer present. At trial, Miranda's lawyer tried to get the confession thrown out, but the motion was denied. In 1966, the case came in front of the Supreme Court. The Court ruled that the statements made to the police could not be used as evidence, since Miranda had not been advised of his rights.

Since then, before any pertinent questioning of a suspect is done, the police have been required to recite the Miranda warning. The statement, reproduced below, exists in several forms, but all have the key elements: the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. These are also often referred to as the "Miranda rights." When you have been read your rights, you are said to have been "Mirandized."

Note that one need not be Mirandized to be arrested. There is a difference between being arrested and being questioned. Also, basic questions, such as name, address, and Social Security number do not need to be covered by a Miranda warning. The police also need not Mirandize someone who is not a suspect in a crime.

As for Ernesto Miranda, his conviction was thrown out, though he did not become a free man. The police had other evidence that was independent of the confession, and when Miranda was tried a second time, he was convicted again. After release from prison, Miranda was killed in a barroom brawl in 1976.

http://www.usconstitution.net/miranda.html

[Pogues]

Yeah, I'm sure the judge hearing the case will likely let the suspect go in an otherwise airtight case (if it indeed becomes that) because his rights weren't read to him on the spot when there is a perfectly legitimate and legal excuse that can be used why they weren't read on the spot.

The dude was throwing explosives at law enforcement officers earlier in the day. EXPLOSIVES!

[Judge Jude]

fair enough for a layman's debate
not in ORIGINAL constitution

and you didn't excerpt the public safety exception

[Hornsby]

Yeah, I'm sure the judge hearing the case will likely let the suspect go in an otherwise airtight case (if it indeed becomes that) because his rights weren't read to him on the spot when there is a perfectly legitimate and legal excuse that can be used why they weren't read on the spot.

The dude was throwing explosives at law enforcement officers earlier in the day. EXPLOSIVES!

So if it's an airtight case, why not read him his rights?

[Hornsby]

fair enough for a layman's debate
not in ORIGINAL constitution

and you didn't excerpt the public safety exception

Do we really have a public safety issue? At what point do we decide that ALL violent crimes should have a "public saftey" exception? It's a rather slippery slope...and I think that we as a nation, and as a people are strong enough to handle this issue without resorting to exceptional means. He's a 19 year old who was most likely led into this by an older brother...

BTW, hopefully this will clear up the constitutional issue for you.

For years, the constitutional status of the Miranda warnings was clouded in uncertainty. Had the Court announced a constitutional rule, or merely set forth supervisory rules that could be superseded by statutory rules? The fact that Miranda itself applied the rules to a state court proceeding, and that the Court in subsequent cases consistently applied the warnings to state proceedings, was strong evidence of constitutional moorings. In 1968, however, Congress enacted a statute designed to set aside Miranda in the federal courts and to reinstate the traditional voluntariness test.13 The statute lay unimplemented, for the most part, due to constitutional doubts about it. The Court also created exceptions to the Miranda warnings over the years, and referred to the warnings as “prophylactic” 14 and “not themselves rights protected by the Constitution.” 15 There were even hints that some Justices might be willing to overrule the decision.

In Dickerson v. United States,16 the Court resolved the basic issue, holding that Miranda was a constitutional decision that could not be overturned by statute, and consequently that 18 U.S.C. § 3501 was unconstitutional. Application of Miranda warnings to state proceedings necessarily implied a constitutional base, the Court explained, since federal courts “hold no supervisory authority over state judicial proceedings.” 17 Moreover, Miranda itself had purported to “give concrete constitutional guidance to law enforcement agencies and courts to follow.” 18 That the Miranda rules are constitution–based does not mean that they are “immutable,” however. The Court repeated its invitation for legislative action that would be “at least as effective” in protecting a suspect’s right to remain silent during custodial interrogation. Section 3501, however, merely reinstated the “totality–of–the–circumstances” rule held inadequate in Miranda, so that provision could not be considered as effective as the Miranda warnings.

The Dickerson Court also rejected a request to overrule Miranda. “Whether or not we would agree with Miranda’s reasoning and its resulting rule, were we addressing the issue in the first instance,” Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote for a seven–Justice majority, “the principles of stare decisis weigh heavily against overruling it now.” There was no special justification for overruling the decision; subsequent cases had not undermined the decision’s doctrinal underpinnings, but rather had “reaffirm[ed]” its “core ruling.” Moreover, Miranda warnings had “become so embedded in routine police practice [that they] have become part of our national culture.” 19

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt5afrag10_user.html

[madducks]

why doesn't RJ have a tank?

I thought the Sports Bar Bartender was in charge of procuring that sort of stuff.

He could get this one.

funny-beer-tank-supermarket.jpg

[The Feral Slasher]

So if it's an airtight case, why not read him his rights?

This might be the reason, I recall it from a few years ago, but I can't say for sure

http://jonathanturley.org/2011/03/24/obama-orders-limits-on-miranda-rights-for-domestic-suspects/

[Judge Jude]

yeah, I'd have to know more about the exact details in this case. These 2 had been violent enough that Obama can get away with it, but that doesn't mean that should be the ideal, either.....

[Pogues]

Right now, the tank discussion is the more sensible of the two discussions taking place in this thread.

[Hornsby]

This might be the reason, I recall it from a few years ago, but I can't say for sure

http://jonathanturley.org/2011/03/24...stic-suspects/

Based on reading that column, it was used wrongly then, and it's being used wrongly now. If you really think that the country, the Constitution, and the justice system can't handle this kind of a case while giving the citizen all of their rights, then we really are on the downslide.

[Steve]

Right now, the tank discussion is the more sensible of the two discussions taking place in this thread.

We should get a submarine, too.

[Judge Jude]

geesh, "Hallelujah" played before the start of the game at Fenway Park with a montage of photos and live shots.

got a little dusty in here

whoops, David Ortiz tells the crowd: "It's our focking city"

but he didn't say 'focking'

went out live locally, but bleeped on ESPN

[DJBeasties]

I can't wait to get more details on this whole thing. I hope the kid breaks and tells everything because it's surreal and a friggen on-soil terrorist attack. His brother went way radical shortly ago but I want to know what the little psychopath 19 year old has to say.

[Lucky]

I'm in for the submarine.

And BTW, there is nothing which requires a detainee to be read Miranda rights or anything else. It's only that any information he might provide in response to custodial interrogation is subject to being ruled inadmissible at trial. It's called the "Exclusionary Rule", and it is a judicially created doctrine. Thanks in large part to police abuses of the 40s, 50s and 60s, the Courts have held that the "punishment" for not advising a detainee of his Fifth Amendment rights is to exclude not only the evidence gained through interrogation, but also any additional evidence it leads to. That doctrine is "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree".