Supreme Court Ruling On Miranda Rights

Supreme Court Ruling On Miranda Rights

www.baltimoresun.com

A crime suspect who invokes his "right to remain silent" under the famous Miranda decision can be questioned again after 14 days, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday. And if he freely agrees to talk then, his incriminatory statements can be used against him.

In a 9-0 decision in a child-abuse case, the high court overturned a strict rule set in 1981 which barred the police from questioning a suspect once he had asked to remain silent and to speak with a lawyer.

(visit the link for the full news article)

While that rule makes sense for suspects who are held in jail, it does not make sense for suspects who have gone free, the justices said Wednesday. In recent years, it has been understood to prevent police from ever re-questioning a freed suspect, even for other crimes in other places.

"In a country that harbors a large number of repeat offenders, the consequence (of this no-further questioning rule) is disastrous," said Justice Antonin Scalia.

Well it seems our rights are eroding every single day. This is disturbing. While I can see it applying to violent offenders, I am afraid this will apply to all suspects questioned in any crime.

I am sure this will not be well known to most people. So know your "new rights" and lawyer up. This could incur enormous legal fees to anyone. I guess we should all just keep a lawyer on retainer at all times.

It is actually called a "Miranda Warning" not Miranda Rights.

edit to add: What of the people that can not afford a lawyer and one was appointed for him/her. Does that same lawyer have to represent him/her again?

www.baltimoresun.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 24-2-2010 by timewalker]

Semperfortis. Maybe you could give us your opinion...What could this mean for the average person with little income?

reply to post by timewalker


It means they go to jail.

More stacking the deck against defendents, I think. Now, must the warning be given again, and if the questionee refuses again, does it restart the clock?

This court is one of the worst I've seen.

Let the criminals go free... They have more rights than the victims anyway...

Magnum

reply to post by timewalker


I don't really see where any rights have been eroded...you still have the right to remain silent...a second time around. It's not like they will question you, deny you a lawyer for 14 days and then re-question you. You will still have the right to an attorney and the right to remain silent...see, all rights remain intact...no "erosion" either.

reply to post by apacheman

Who knows? It seems that the questioning could go on for the rest of your life. The old saying " if your not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about" is seeming very vague these days. With so many laws, it is difficult to know if you are doing anything wrong or not. Common sense does not seem to apply with thousands upon thousands of laws. Who could actually know them all?

reply to post by Aggie Man
Yes, I see that, but what about my question about court appointed lawyers? Do the still have to represent you, or do you provide your own? If not, I see that as an erosion. Not everyone can afford a lawyer.

Originally posted by timewalker
reply to post by Aggie Man

 

Yes, I see that, but what about my question about court appointed lawyers? Do the still have to represent you, or do you provide your own? If not, I see that as an erosion. Not everyone can afford a lawyer.

Of course they would get court appointed legal counsel. Why wouldn't they? It's part of the Miranda Rights:

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?

P.S. the statement that the officer recites is the "Miranda Warning", which is a notification of your "Miranda Rights".

[edit on 24-2-2010 by Aggie Man]

reply to post by Aggie Man
I mean after the original appointment, after you have been released. Does he/she still represent you 14 days later. I am not sure if they read you the rights again, just leaves it open to question you again.



[edit on 24-2-2010 by timewalker]

Originally posted by timewalker
reply to post by Aggie Man

 

I mean after the original appointment, after you have been released. Does he/she still represent you 14 days later.

If not the original attorney, there would be legal counsel appointed the second time around (if requested). But IF the person in question started confessing, then that's their mistake for not invoking their rights...or re-invoking in this case.

Just seems a slippery slope. Unless the reread you the rights or tell you the first time around that you can be questioned again 14 days later, you might incriminate yourself unknowingly during multi-interrogations. Bait fish in a shark tank.

I am worried for the people that are really innocent. One slip.

A suspect's request that a lawyer be present before submitting to police questioning does not last forever, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday. In fact, 14 days is long enough for police to wait before taking the alleged perpetrator into custody again and attempting another interrogation.

Justice Clarence Thomas objected to the 14-day period, saying the majority provided no justification for why that was a better fit for the Self-Incrimination Clause than "0, 10, or 100 days." Justice John Paul Stevens refused to agree to it because he said it was too short, especially if police have made no effort in the meantime to find the suspect a lawyer.

Washington Post

Well I guess that means no lawyer has to be present.

I saw on the ATS board and more people should pay attention, if you are going to be questioned by the police, even if you are innocent, demand a lawyer present and say NOTHING, unless you are the victim of a crime. From what I saw on the video, the lawyer actually showed the class what the officers will do, and have done in the past to get a conviction, then had an police dective get up and confirm everything that the lawyer stated. I know that if that happened to me, it is I remain silent and I would like a lawyer, nor do I give consent to any searches of my personal belongings, or vehicles or residences without a warrent. It also means that you have to remain calm and quiet.

Originally posted by timewalker

A suspect's request that a lawyer be present before submitting to police questioning does not last forever, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday. In fact, 14 days is long enough for police to wait before taking the alleged perpetrator into custody again and attempting another interrogation.

Justice Clarence Thomas objected to the 14-day period, saying the majority provided no justification for why that was a better fit for the Self-Incrimination Clause than "0, 10, or 100 days." Justice John Paul Stevens refused to agree to it because he said it was too short, especially if police have made no effort in the meantime to find the suspect a lawyer.

Washington Post

Well I guess that means no lawyer has to be present.

It means that after 14 days, they can go back to the suspect and question again; however, they still must recite the Miranda Warning again; and again, the suspect would have a right to remain silent and have a right to an attorney.

In a sense you are right...if the suspect waives their right to an attorney, the an attorney does not have to be present; however, if the suspect invokes their right to an attorney then an attorney has to be present.

To me, it's a common sense issue...if you invoke your right to remain silent/an attorney, then you should have the common sense to know to re-invoke it every time the investigators come-a-calling....not to mention, the attorney has a legal and ethical duty to make it clear to their client that they NOT talk to investigators w/o legal counsel present...and the consequences of not having counsel present.

reply to post by sdcigarpig

I am interested in the video, would you please post the source. Thanks for your reply.

And thanks to you too AggieMan. To me it is common sense too. That is IF they read the warning to you again. I have not seen it stated that they will. I would assume, assuming is ignorant and ignorance is no excuse to the law. I just think this is an important issue that all should be aware of.

Originally posted by timewalker

"In a country that harbors a large number of repeat offenders, the consequence (of this no-further questioning rule) is disastrous," said Justice Antonin Scalia.

I am sure this will not be well known to most people. So know your "new rights" and lawyer up. This could incur enormous legal fees to anyone. I guess we should all just keep a lawyer on retainer at all times.

You can tell by the very language Scalia uses that he has disdain for the American populace. How is America harboring large numbers of repeat offenders? Is the government actiely attempting to sequester criminals so they can not be prosecuted? Is the average citizen?

To me that language basicly says that Scalia has no respect for the populace or the basic rights the bill of rights acts to secure. Teamed with the recent "corporate free speech" decision this is scary. I really think the SCOTUS is trying to cement corporatism as the new paradigm.

My question is; couldn't the suspect just refuse again? Why not refuse every 15 days?

Edit to add. . .
This could lead to the serious disruption of lives. This means that now a cop can haul you down to the precinct, and hold you for 48 hours, every fifteen days. Even if you refuse to answer questions they can still hold you and continue to question you over and over. They have to have your lawyer there. That doesn't mean that they can't ask you repeatedly if you have changed your mind. It wouldn't take long for such actions to wear down the resolve of suspects and lawyers. It also wouldn't take too many of these marathon sessions to cost somebody their job or ruin their standing in the community.

[edit on 24-2-2010 by MikeNice81]

[edit on 24-2-2010 by MikeNice81]

reply to post by MikeNice81

My question is; couldn't the suspect just refuse again? Why not refuse every 15 days?

I am wondering this myself. It seems that the legal cost of this for the state or individual could spiral out of control. One of my concerns is that you are read the Miranda Warning when placed under arrest. So will they read it to you again just for further questioning at a later date? I think that if not, and the average person is not aware of the SC ruling, they might think something along the lines of double jeopardy and think they could not be prosecuted. This is common sense that you would, but a lot of people don't have common sense.

I know double jeopardy only applies to being tried for the same crime twice, but I am not sure what category this would fall into.

[edit on 24-2-2010 by timewalker]

Believe it or not about the worst things you can do is evoke your right to counsel especially if you are indigent and are going to be getting a court appointed attorney.

Honestly it’s a bad idea in my humble opinion to do so even if you are going to hire topnotch legal representation as once you enter an attorney of record that attorney as an Officer of the Court actually binds you to abide by United States Code Law instead of Common Law or Nature’s Law as a consequence.

You basically at that point have foregone all your legal rights under Common Law which is much more favorable to you as the State then has to show real damages and prove them which is virtually impossible in victimless crimes and problematic in crimes involving currency since our Fiat De Facto Instrument of Debt Currency for all intents and purposes has no real value since its not attached to any commodity or precious metal but only a perceived value.

Under common and constitutional law you are not even required to identify yourself and can simply state your name as John Doe or John of the Family Doe and if required to sign anything sign it in that fashion “Without Prejudice, All Rights Reserved UC 1-207” which legally signifies you are evoking common law and rejecting U.S. Code Law.

You do not have to talk to the police or prosecuting attorneys and they have up to 72 hours to charge you or then have to let you go.

They are only asking you questions to incriminate yourself and they are trained to ask the kinds of questions that would cause even innocent people to say things in their defense that would cause or cast a cloud of suspicion.

Beware of the good cop bad cop routines. They can deprive you of sleep, food, and rest during that 72 hours in attempts to wear you down and get you to talk to them if you don’t evoke your Miranda Rights, but keep in mind once you do evoke your Miranda Rights you are bound to United States Code Law and the evidentiary standards required to prosecute you lower significantly in their favor.

Going toe to toe with the cops or a magistrate or a state’s attorney when you have been deprived of your liberty and taken out of your environment forcibly and captured into theirs is a harrowing and frightening and nerve racking experience most people are desperate to get over and as such will say and do things that won’t be in your favor later with or without an attorney.

There are real rewards though for holding your ground, keeping your mouth shut and not doing anything to help them until you have a chance to challenge a Judge on the legality of the proceedings under common law.

It helps to keep in mind for the State it’s not really about your guilt or innocence but how they can most profit off of you and your predicament.

No one is there to help you in the manner you can help you and attorneys as officers of the court are bound by the court’s rules.

You on the other hand aren’t if you don’t take one and play your cards right.

There is no easy way to be free in this world but if it’s your freedom you are looking to keep or regain by all means be prepared to fight for it by knowing how the system is rigged against you and not surrendering to those tricks and machinations to deprive you of the protections of common law.


[edit on 24/2/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

First let me thank timewalker for the invite.

There are any number of things at work here, but I think the most pertinent is that Miranda is NOT a right.. It is a Warning, an Advisory if you will. Your rights are clearly defined and come from the Constitution of the United States or more accurately, the Bill of Rights.

(I know some of you think you have God given rights, and you do, but we are not discussing them; we are discussing Miranda and the Constitution)

Now what that means to me is that each one of us, every citizen in fact, needs to be acquainted with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. If you are not, then why is it anyone's fault but your own?

Why would you blame the Police if the subject is too stupid, ignorant or lazy to know/learn he does not have to talk? Especially if he was advised of that only 14 days ago.

You also have to remember that even after invoking one's Right to Remain Silent, one has the ability to revoke that right, or any Constitutional Right for that matter, at any time. I have had subjects "Lawyer Up" before and then after a few days call me and revoke that choice and give me a full statement.

Contrary to what you may see on TV, or read here with some of the wild allegations where you only get one side of the story, most of the people the police arrest are guilty by a VAST majority. It is also a fact that a confession goes a long way to most, not all but most judges during a hearing; be it a PC Hearing or a Trial.

I think it is pertinent to remember that this is not a ruling on anyone's Rights, it is a ruling on how long a person can remember at it's most basic level.

Semper