Skip to comments.Obama wants to end 23-year-old Michigan vs Jackson(defendants right to lawyer before questioning)
Posted on 04/25/2009 1:04:36 PM PDT by Bush Revolution
The Obama administration has argued for the end of the Michigan v Jackson ruling that requires police to provide an attorney for a suspect once one has been requested. They argue that the benefits are meagre, as the Telegraph puts it:
The effort to sweep aside the 23-year-old Michigan vs Jackson ruling is one of several moves by the new government to have dismayed civil rights groups.
The Michigan vs Jackson ruling in 1986 established that, if a defendants have a lawyer or have asked for one to be present, police may not interview them until the lawyer is present.
Any such questioning cannot be used in court even if the suspect agrees to waive his right to a lawyer because he would have made that decision without legal counsel, said the Supreme Court.
However, in a current case that seeks to change the law, the US Justice Department argues that the existing rule is unnecessary and outdated.
The sixth amendment of the US constitution protects the right of criminal suspects to be represented by counsel, but the Obama regime argues that this merely means to protect the adversary process in a criminal trial.
The Justice Department, in a brief signed by Elena Kagan, the solicitor general, said the 1986 decision serves no real purpose and offers only meagre benefits.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
Your Dear Leader needs this omnipotence. No soup for you, Conservative Swine. Guilty. To the Camp!
Is he looking to overturn Miranda too?
Burning the Bill of Rights one Amendment at a time.
That would be...What if Bush did it?
This gains him no political points at all, and no real power either.
Anyone who doesn't know the 5th amendment & also thinks for some weird reason that he HAS to talk to the cops after being arrested is probably a liberal ipso facto.
The ACLU has determined that the “good guys” (e.g. them) are now in charge, and there’s no further need for civil liberties. The left never changes.
Then why end it? Is it somehow bothering Mr Obama?
Step 1 of eliminating liberty. The civilian police force will then have an unnecessary burden removed.
“This gains him no political points at all, and no real power either.”
My thoughts, so why do it? I really don’t get this guy.
not a peep from RATS on this because all registerd Democrats love State power. They will cheer at mobs publically lynching any free thinkers.
It appears so
It's hard to understand the mind of a commie.
Obama would doubtless be among the screamers and cryers if this had taken place under Bush.
It is a puzzle, isn't it?
Probably, this is a pet project of someone connected to him in some way.
This makes absolutely no sense at all. I’m no ACLU type, but the right to counsel is in the Constitution for good reason.
Just like the Democrat Party. Democrats exist only to suck the blood from living organisms.
A commie wants to make everything communal, if it kills you.
A liberal civil rights stance is not a stopping place, but a stepping stone, to a communist. Once it ceases to be useful to creating the commune, he will gladly cast it away.
She and Napolitano, a match made in Heaven. Together, 450+ lbs. of fun in the off hours.
My guess is that many BushBots would be praising Bush if he were to of done the same thing.
However, I don't care who does it, all I know is that it is an attempt to slash and burn the Constitution.
He wants no witnesses to the interrogation torture, I suppose.
Not to worry, the "civil rights" leadership will be humping Obama's legs (again) by the end of the week
It appears so.
My wife was trying to tell me something about this, and I told her she was getting something confused... guess I owe her an apology ... what is the story?
This ruling does not denie the right to council.
The ruling is, if a defendants have a lawyer or have asked for one to be present, the police may not interview them until the lawyer is present, even if the suspect agrees to waive his right to a lawyer.
Joe blow gets pulled over for 37 in a 35 mph zone.
Joe has had a couple beers but did nothing wrong except 2mph over the limit.
Barney Fife smells the beer and makes poor Joe blow in his machine.
Barney know that the state county makes a bundle off DUI arrests.
Joe is arrested, but demands an attorney before he does anything more.
Barney's road-side breath sniffer isn't accurate enough to stand up in court, and without Joe's attorney present they can't force him to blow in the calibrated legal machine at the police station.
2 hours later a lawyer shows up at the jail and Joe blows .03.
Perfectly legal in every state...Joe walks free.
Tell me again how this is trivial and no big deal to Joe?
Actually, there is quite a group of both liberals and conservatives supporting the reversal of this conviction and for affirming the Michigan v. Jackson; including a number of former federal prosecutors and judges' and Former FBI director William Sessions. On the libersl side, ther ia th ACLU and public defenders associations, etc.
While I don't agree with the ACLU on most issues, they get a lot right when it comes to defending unjustly prosecuted/convicted defendants.
“My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.”
“My guess is that many BushBots would be praising Bush if he were to of done the same thing.”
Idiotic and irrelavant comment, President Bush did not, Obama did.
Surprise, surprise, surprise - Obama isn’t really black at heart after all.
Lookin’ more and more each day as if he is just the Saul Alinksy commie and Bill Davis acolyte which those Republican Reptiles said he was.
Here is the petition for cert with the USSC.
This guy was railroaded, but if the CIA treated a terrorist in this manner, he’d lose his job and may get prosecuted.
Try that here where I live Obama.
I think people need to read up on this case before freaking out. The administration is right on this and the Bush administration would’ve supported the same stance. Overruling Jackson will not take away the right to counsel.
Thank god someone gets it. Overruling Jackson will not take away the right to counsel and it will not impact reading of Miranda rights. (I’m surprised at how many FReepers seem to defend Miranda. It’s holding that defendants must be read their rights is nowhere to be found in the Constitution.)
Obama does call the Bill of Rights as “anti-Constitutional rights”.
That would be where this is going, Overturn Miranda and Escobedo. Of course since conservatives railed against those Warren Court decisions it may be a bit hypocritical for conservatives to oppose the haloed one on this. Of course with the last wekk as a guide, it will be conservatives in the dock.
Yes, but if you wanted an attorney present for questioning it would take away that right. Yes, everyone gets a lawyer in court, but they should also have one during questioning if they so desire. Why do you think it’s a good idea to overturn it?
Except it’s not. Michigan v. Jackson was wrongly decided.
Making it easier and easier for his brownshirts to come for you. Defense??? What defense? You swine have no defense against us.
One might claim that the Miranda is enough, that the person should know better than to talk after that. But a psychologically vulnerable person (this is not equivalent to a criminal person) might be yet coerced into talking. It is not “freaking out” to show a genuine concern, so you only put forth a straw man.
Wrong. You still get one during questioning. That’s not what this is about.
If you read it, what do you think?
You would want the subject to be kept ignorant of this if he already was.
This will call Miranda in question shortly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.