Posted on 05/26/2009 9:15:52 AM PDT by freedomwarrior998
Does this mean that the police can continue interrogation after you request legal councel?
Why is it that those four seem to always be wrong about everything?
I’m not positive that I’d call this a good one. I’m typically not in favor of expanding police powers at the expense of individual liberty, and this, at first glance, appears to do so.
Correct!!!!
Was he prevented from doing so or did he just not meet with his attorney? It doesn't state what happened in the summary.
Under Edwards, once such a defendant “has invoked his [Miranda] right,” interrogation must stop. 451 U. S., at 484<\blockquote>.
I’m OK with the State court’s holding. He didn’t ask for a lawyer, so he doesn’t get the protection.
I’m not cool, however, with overruling a rule that prohibits interrogation after a suspect has requested a lawyer. I’ll withhold final judgment until I read Edwards.
And how would the new appointment fall??????
No. In this case, the defendant never requested counsel. He was appointed a public defender automatically. When informed of his Miranda rights, he still opted to cooperate in the search for the weapon and wrote the letter.
That was the argument made by the state, the ruling was that made no difference!!
How is this a federal issue anyway? The original law was federal, so it’s been overturned at the federal level. OK.
But that shouldn’t and doesn’t imply that this issue has been fixed at the federal level. They overturned their own law. Nothing’s stopping each state from having a law that has this same effect.
Should never have been a federal issue, quite possibly, and that seems to be the basis on which they overturned it: “some states do this, some states do that”.
As if there is any doubt. The new appointee is probably further to the left than Ginsburg.
Looks OK to me. I don’t think this expands police power. It appears to just throw out one of three precedents that made the matter more confusing than workable. Under other precedents they still have to stop an interrogation once counsel is requested. Looks like now, they could still use a freely given and uncoerced confession that was not a product of interrogation.
I think.
The reversal states that the police knew he had been appointed an attorney and for them to question further without attorney permission was a violation. It did not make any difference if he requested one are not. The police knew they were breaking the law.
I haven’t read over the whole thing, but I think that Stevens’s dissent raises some fair points, although I’m not sure that I would agree with Stevens’s contention that the Jackson rule should be automatically triggered once a suspect is arraigned.
On the other hand, Stevens rightly points out that once a suspect has been arraigned—and becomes a defendant—the stakes have been raised and the importance of counsel is paramount, and perhaps too important to be left to the decision of a confused, stressed, and, perhaps, stupid defendant.
The article clearly states he had not taken the opportunity to request counsel...that’s why this matter was overruled.
Rush just announced the Sumpreme Court just reversed all four opinions before them of Judge Sotomayor.
Not under today's decision, I don't believe that they were. After all, what now seems to be clear is that if you don't ask for a lawyer, the police can interrogate you, regardless of whether you have an attorney.
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.