Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev silent after read Miranda rights

Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev silent after read Miranda rights

www.cbsnews.c om

Sixteen hours after investigators began interrogating him, the surviving suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings went silent: He'd just been read his constitutional rights.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev immediately stopped talking after a magistrate judge and a representative from the U.S. Attorney's office entered his hospital room and gave him his Miranda warning, a U.S. law enforcement source and four officials of both political parties briefed on the interrogation told The Associated Press. They insisted on anonymity because the briefing was private.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Important to note, the Miranda rights is a WARNING, they do not give you your rights you always have them and can invoke them at anytime.

It would seem he did not know that as the instant he was read them he shut up, also interesting to note is that he was on the watch list for terrorist for the past 18 months.

The CIA, however, had named Tamerlan to a terrorist database 18 months ago, a U.S. official told CBS News senior correspondent John Miller. The new disclosure that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was included within a huge, classified database of known and suspected terrorists before the attacks was expected to drive congressional inquiries in coming weeks about whether the Obama administration adequately investigated tips from Russia that Tsarnaev had posed a security threat.

www.cbsnews.c om
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by benrl


I like the media's little spin on this......as if we would have a full confession if that damned Miranda admonition hadn't gotten in the way.

Originally posted by NightGypsy
reply to post by benrl

 

I like the media's little spin on this......as if we would have a full confession if that damned Miranda admonition hadn't gotten in the way.

Yeah more interesting is the whole "you don't have rights unless your told them" angle that people seemed to be confused over.

You see this propagated in all those police shows they pump onto network TV, Propaganda at its finest.

As I said in the OP you always have your rights, they can't take them, they just don't need to tell you you have them.

-This is troubling...

I think it has less to do with "rights" and more to do with being doped up, in a Hospital and half "out of it". Had his "Rights" been read immediately he probably would not have remembered or comprehended anyhow. I was in a Hospital and given Morphine once (not for anything serious like SHOT IN THE NECK AND HEAD) and I was pretty out of it- I imagine he was "flying" during the entire interrogation.

Now, I see this being brought up.

So, if this was an issue of "lives possibly in danger" and I can understand the interrogation (or those parts of it) regardless of how many painkillers he was on and whether rights were read or not. But to begin building any "case" seems to me premature (and I couldnt understand it anyhow) since if he can only nod, write things, say "no" and is under massive amounts of painkillers (presumably) or intense pain- Wouldnt much of this be thrown out anyhow, or at the very least objected to by his attorney?

Something fishy here-
EDIT: @ ben- you are 100% correct. The reading of rights does not grant any rights at all- Rather sffirms what you already have.

reply to post by benrl


Kinda like............"You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used "AGAINST YOU"!

So in other words, never say anything to the authoritarian figure who questions you! It does not say "used FOR YOU!"!

Originally posted by DarKPenguiN
-This is troubling...

I think it has less to do with "rights" and more to do with being doped up, in a Hospital and half "out of it". Had his "Rights" been read immediately he probably would not have remembered or comprehended anyhow. I was in a Hospital and given Morphine once (not for anything serious like SHOT IN THE NECK AND HEAD) and I was pretty out of it- I imagine he was "flying" during the entire interrogation.

Spot-on. His sudden silence likely has everything to do with him being much more cognizant.

I am going to upset a few people when I say this:

At first I was all for his miranda rights that was right up until he has only been a citizen for a matter of a few months.

I am all for calling the kid an enemy combatant.

It would be a different story of they were born here and lived all their lives of course their rights should not be denied.

But this guy?

I don't want to see anymore 8 year old little boy's die holding a sign " people should stop hurting themselves" perish in a barbaric act like the Boston Bombing.

I honestly wouldn't care if Tsarnaev was waterboarded.

Because they didn't read him his Miranda Rights to begin with, almost everything he might have told them or confessed to isn't admissible and likely won't be acceptable as evidence to incriminate him in a court. Now they must start everything from scratch.

Originally posted by FidelityMusic
Because they didn't read him his Miranda Rights to begin with, almost everything he might have told them or confessed to isn't admissible and likely won't be acceptable as evidence to incriminate him in a court. Now they must start everything from scratch.

No it is, thats why they used the public safety exemption, its used all the time.

Not telling Miranda does not mean his rights where violated, thats why they used the exception so that it would be admissible, its a legal tactic.

heres a thread on it

delaying of miranda rights

"immediately stopped talking"

Wait... Perhaps they are using a "figure of speech"(pun not intended), but I thought he couldn't talk regardless (because of his neck injury). I guess he stopped writing? Regardless....


"If police detain (or arrest) a person, they must advise him that he has a right to remain silent, and the right to an attorney, among other rights. If the detained person invokes these rights, all interrogation must cease, and nothing said by the defendant in violation of this rule can be admitted against him at trial. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 448-50, 455 (1966)."

I think the mistake made was not reading him his rights, thus opening the doors on a violations of the 5th/ Miranda rights.

It's clear the kid isn't stupid just from reading his tweets. I don't get why he'd sing like a canary.
He didn't have to talk at all, regardless of Miranda.

Originally posted by benrl

Important to note, the Miranda rights is a WARNING, they do not give you your rights you always have them and can invoke them at anytime.

Very true and apparently ATS isn't interested in that. He could have told them to go fly a kite and I am not talking until I have a lawyer by my bedside. As you said, reading them doesn't magically grant them as they are based purely upon documented law; more specifically; the Constitution (5th Amendment and a few Articles). The "public safety" exception applies to what is admissible in court; not what they can tweak out of a suspect.

Sounds like, at least to this point, the Feds played it straight, only asking questions in line to the public safety exception; anything outside of that line of questioning would fall outside of the exception and be thrown out of court. Any lawyer with half-a-brain could do that.

Originally posted by squidboy
Regardless....

"If police detain (or arrest) a person, they must advise him that he has a right to remain silent, and the right to an attorney, among other rights. If the detained person invokes these rights, all interrogation must cease, and nothing said by the defendant in violation of this rule can be admitted against him at trial. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 448-50, 455 (1966)."

The Supreme Court carved out an exception in 1984 in New York v. Quarles but it doesn't negate his rights, it only means what is permissible in the Court of Law as pertaining to the when the question was asked.

I think the mistake made was not reading him his rights, thus opening the doors on a violations of the 5th/ Miranda rights.

Only if we start seeing this exception being widely used. Until now, it is still very narrow in scope and isn't the first time. The "Underwear Bomber" was delayed that under the same precedents.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Here's an article on the public safety exception -

In October 2010, the FBI issued a guidance for how to apply this “public safety exemption” to terrorism suspects. The memo noted that “an arrest of an operational terrorist may warrant signifcantly more public safety interrogation” than ordinary criminal cases.

so if you must get yourself arrested try not to get labelled an "operational terrorist"!

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Even if you are, you are not forced nor denied (unless you are dragged to a dark-secret prison; different topic) to say anything. That Right exists because you are human and are being charged by the State. Just sit there quietly.

The application of the rule does not infringe upon the suspect, but only allows the state to use evidence gained prior to Miranda being administered, to be admitted in a Court of Law. Even then, it will be subject to a judge.

Example: If this current guy started singing about how he robbed a store 6-months ago, a sound judge would dismiss that because it doesn't pertain to the public safety exception. If he says "we have 30 bombs in a house", that will be allowed.

It is narrow in its application and should be.

ETA: And guidance isn't precedents. That is FBI lawyers thinking they can go so far. It will be tested in the court. If shown the information gathered actually pertained to public safety, it will stand. If not, a judge should throw it out.

Originally posted by squidboy
"immediately stopped talking"

Wait... Perhaps they are using a "figure of speech"(pun not intended), but I thought he couldn't talk regardless (because of his neck injury). I guess he stopped writing? Regardless....


"If police detain (or arrest) a person, they must advise him that he has a right to remain silent, and the right to an attorney, among other rights. If the detained person invokes these rights, all interrogation must cease, and nothing said by the defendant in violation of this rule can be admitted against him at trial. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 448-50, 455 (1966)."

I think the mistake made was not reading him his rights, thus opening the doors on a violations of the 5th/ Miranda rights.

DICKERSON v. UNITED STATES, is another example where Miranda is unnescary.

Originally posted by benrl
DICKERSON v. UNITED STATES, is another example where Miranda is unnescary.

That one is fun to read; more specifically the dissent. Scalia makes some good points. Miranda is not a constitutional ruling and it really is a ruling based on the constitution. He makes that point clear. But doing so, he is showing how the Court is protecting its 'judicial review' precedents created in Marbury v. Madison.

A great read for legal nerds alike in my opinion. It also speaks to ignorantia juris non excusat, or the fact we have moved so far from that to mean a person voluntarily squealing when they are arrested from not being admissible. The very heart of Scalia's dissent.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Even if you are, you are not forced nor denied (unless you are dragged to a dark-secret prison; different topic) to say anything. That Right exists because you are human and are being charged by the State. Just sit there quietly.

Yeah I wasn't arguing that point - just hoping to widen appreciation of hte exception.

reply to post by benrl


Having a lawyer present has one other positive to it. It places the conversation on record. No one can claim that something was said that was not said.

If anything, it helps the Prosecution because it means that anything said will be used against him instead of evidence being thrown out of Court.