Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Miranda
Townhall.com ^ | April 22, 2013 | Rich Galen

Posted on 04/22/2013 12:21:37 PM PDT by Kaslin

Suddenly, every cable news anchor, every pundit, every Sunday show guest, and every waiter in Old Town Alexandria, Virginia has become an expert on whether or not Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should be informed of his Miranda rights.

Let's assume, for the moment, that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, has never watched a single episode of "Law & Order" in any of its manifestations and, thus, does not know he can ask for a lawyer - or refuse to answer any questions with a lawyer or without.

Just so I can catch up (I know you already know this), the whole Miranda thing stems from that pesky portion of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that reads:

"No person … shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

And that portion of the Sixth Amendment that reads:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall … have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

In the case of Miranda v. Arizona, Phoenix cops arrested Ernesto Miranda on a charge of rape. They interrogated him for two hours after which he signed a confession to the crime.

At trial, Miranda's attorney claimed he had been coerced into signing the confession and it should not be allowed as evidence. The Arizona Supreme Court agreed with the cops, but in 1966, Chief Justice Earl Warren writing for the majority in the U.S. Supreme Court said:

"The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him."

The opinion further explained

"By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way."

As you know, one of the many things I am not is a lawyer.

I took one semester of Constitutional Law from Dr. Robert Hill at Marietta College, Marietta, Ohio 45750 and have claimed unlimited understanding of the ins-and-outs of our legal system solely based upon that one undergraduate course.

After the SCOTUS threw out Miranda's original conviction (as well of the convictions in associated cases in California and New York), Ernesto was re-tried, was convicted without his confession, and was sentenced to 20-30 years in prison.

Miranda was paroled in 1972 and was killed in a bar fight in 1976. He was 34 years old.

Suddenly, every cable news anchor, every pundit, every Sunday show guest, and every waiter in Old Town Alexandria, Virginia has become an expert on whether or not Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should be informed of his Miranda rights.

Let's assume, for the moment, that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, has never watched a single episode of "Law & Order" in any of its manifestations and, thus, does not know he can ask for a lawyer - or refuse to answer any questions with a lawyer or without.

Just so I can catch up (I know you already know this), the whole Miranda thing stems from that pesky portion of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that reads:

"No person … shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

And that portion of the Sixth Amendment that reads:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall … have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

In the case of Miranda v. Arizona, Phoenix cops arrested Ernesto Miranda on a charge of rape. They interrogated him for two hours after which he signed a confession to the crime.

At trial, Miranda's attorney claimed he had been coerced into signing the confession and it should not be allowed as evidence. The Arizona Supreme Court agreed with the cops, but in 1966, Chief Justice Earl Warren writing for the majority in the U.S. Supreme Court said:

"The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him."

The opinion further explained

"By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way."

As you know, one of the many things I am not is a lawyer.

I took one semester of Constitutional Law from Dr. Robert Hill at Marietta College, Marietta, Ohio 45750 and have claimed unlimited understanding of the ins-and-outs of our legal system solely based upon that one undergraduate course.

After the SCOTUS threw out Miranda's original conviction (as well of the convictions in associated cases in California and New York), Ernesto was re-tried, was convicted without his confession, and was sentenced to 20-30 years in prison.

Miranda was paroled in 1972 and was killed in a bar fight in 1976. He was 34 years old.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: dzhokhartsarnaev; judgesandcourts; mirandarights; safetyandsecurity; tsarnaev

1 posted on 04/22/2013 12:21:37 PM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Shouldn't "Dzhokhar" be pronounced "Joker?"
2 posted on 04/22/2013 12:23:25 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum ("Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth." --Alan Greenspan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

3 posted on 04/22/2013 12:24:02 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

The correct pronunciation is either Jah Kahr or Joh Kahr. I think Joker is perfect, and that’s what I call him.


4 posted on 04/22/2013 12:25:03 PM PDT by Enterprise ("Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

5 posted on 04/22/2013 12:25:21 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise
"I think Joker is perfect, and that’s what I call him."

I concur.


6 posted on 04/22/2013 12:27:00 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Not too long ago there was another terrorist caught. He immediately asserted his rights and clammed up, and Holder and the DOJ were angry. They said that Miranda needed to be changed. I commented about it, reminding the readers that any attempt to change Miranda through the years has been met with legions of lawyers coming out of the woodwork to protest such a thing. Yet, when liberals were confronted with something police officers deal with every day, THEY DIDN’T LIKE IT! THEY WANTED IT CHANGED!


7 posted on 04/22/2013 12:28:11 PM PDT by Enterprise ("Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

A newly minted citizen Islamic terrorist; he just had a test on the constitution, one would assume he actually read it as part of his studies. The Miranda Warning is an advisory of rights, not an extending of them. If you do not get read your Miranda, it does not overturn the constitution, and you can still refuse to answer questions, demand a lawyer, etc.


8 posted on 04/22/2013 12:28:17 PM PDT by kingu (Everything starts with slashing the size and scope of the federal government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

Is she your latest girlfriend, Paladin2?


9 posted on 04/22/2013 12:28:57 PM PDT by Ken522
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Ken522

No, she likes to wear fruity hats, but that’s her right.


10 posted on 04/22/2013 12:30:10 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

So the penalty for no Miranda:

The cops may interrogate a person and act upon the knowledge gained, but may not use the statements in a criminal trial.


11 posted on 04/22/2013 12:31:26 PM PDT by donna (Pray for revival.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ken522
"9 February 1909 – 5 August 1955"

Nope, I'm not a necrophiliac. You?

12 posted on 04/22/2013 12:32:34 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I think we need to go back to requiring jurors be informed of their rights.


13 posted on 04/22/2013 12:37:11 PM PDT by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

This whole Miranda question is for show, IMHO. All of the talking head ‘experts’ immediately started gabbing about the ‘public safety’ exemption...which makes it look like Obama is really pushing the envelope with handling the terrorists.

But he’s not. This guy should never go to criminal court in the first place.


14 posted on 04/22/2013 12:39:28 PM PDT by lacrew (Mr. Soetoro, we regret to inform you that your race card is over the credit limit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise
"No person … shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" And that portion of the Sixth Amendment that reads: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall … have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

I don't see how they get Miranda out of that. Forcing someone to be a witness against himself and having counsel for one's defense does not mean "throw it out if he blabs before he's been told he can be silent and that he can have a lawyer."

Both seem to relate to the trial, if you ask me. The first saying you can't be called to witness against yourself and the second that you've got to have counsel at that trial.

15 posted on 04/22/2013 12:40:04 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: lacrew

Most people are saying that in a civilian court he would receive punishment and they are saying none of the terrorist from Guantanamo Bay has received any punishment and many were let go. The reason why they haven’t been punished was because the liberals insisted on it. They think we are stupid


16 posted on 04/22/2013 12:46:10 PM PDT by Kaslin (He needed the ignorant to reelect him, and he got them. Now we all have to pay the consequenses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: xzins
We are in agreement about how kindly old Judge Earl Warren came up with Miranda out of that. But, he used that and other amendments to tell the police that if they had someone in custody, and that if they wanted to question him about a crime so as to able to use those statements as evidence at trial, then they had to give him the Miranda warnings.

Almost every police show depicts an officer handcuffing someone and immediately reading the Miranda rights. That is not a good procedure to follow, because if he invokes, the detective who might want to question him is screwed.

17 posted on 04/22/2013 12:46:47 PM PDT by Enterprise ("Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
"Do you know Miranda?"
18 posted on 04/22/2013 12:53:24 PM PDT by Malone LaVeigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1t3vtr0kxk


19 posted on 04/22/2013 12:54:14 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

According to those profound Constitutional experts and legal beagles, Brain Kilmead and Allison Camerada of Fox and Friends, you have no rights under the 5th and 6th Amendments (as noted in this article) until you are granted these rights by government which is done by reading them to you (Miranda). Allison said on air, “he has no right to silence”.

I was utterly amazed after hearing this on Saturday morning to discover how many people seemingly agree with them, that Miranda “Rights” (not Warning) are granted to you by the police when you are detained and until they issue such a grant, you do not have those rights. Our education system on display.


20 posted on 04/22/2013 12:55:40 PM PDT by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kingu
I looked up if a naturalized citizen can lose his citizenship and I found this link

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2638646/posts

The first one is: 1. Convicted For An Act Of Treason Against The United States

I wonder if what he did could be considered treason?

21 posted on 04/22/2013 12:57:59 PM PDT by Kaslin (He needed the ignorant to reelect him, and he got them. Now we all have to pay the consequenses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

Paladin, I have personally told people to tell the police they can’t search them, their car, their homes, or property. I have personally told people to invoke their Miranda rights upon being questioned. And in a couple of instances, people I had talked to were arrested and either incriminated themselves by statements or allowed a search. It is easy for us to tell people to assert their rights, but once someone is in a tough spot, they find it difficult to do so.


22 posted on 04/22/2013 12:58:49 PM PDT by Enterprise ("Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise
I agree.

It apparently takes training or life experiences. As an old fart, I now have both.

23 posted on 04/22/2013 1:00:53 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

I like Alysin Camerota, but sometimes she get things wrong, I could just scream


24 posted on 04/22/2013 1:05:07 PM PDT by Kaslin (He needed the ignorant to reelect him, and he got them. Now we all have to pay the consequenses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: donna

“So the penalty for no Miranda:

The cops may interrogate a person and act upon the knowledge gained, but may not use the statements in a criminal trial.”

Close but incomplete. Not only can defendant’s statements not be used, any evidence gleaned from the statements cannot be used (Poisonous Tree Doctrine) unless the discovery of the evidence would have been inevitable (through another source).


25 posted on 04/22/2013 1:08:04 PM PDT by Oregon Betsy Ross
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Was it an overt act of war? It was done in the open, at least two witnesses can be produced to bear witness to the act, and firing upon forces seems like a continuation of that act...

I’d say it’d have a good chance of passing judicial review as being acts of treason.


26 posted on 04/22/2013 1:13:56 PM PDT by kingu (Everything starts with slashing the size and scope of the federal government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Oregon Betsy Ross
“...So the penalty for no Miranda...".

The Miranda Warning got "invented" when I was a teenager; since then, criminality has gone rampant.

27 posted on 04/22/2013 3:25:16 PM PDT by Does so (Progressives Don't Know the Meaning of INFRINGED...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
I wonder if what he did could be considered treason?

Would a reasonably intelligent and informed person consider the act of placing explosive devices to maim and kill persons attending a sporting venue to be 'waging war against these United States'? If the answer is affirmative, then, by the definition present within the Constitution, which is the sole legal definition of the crime of Treason, then it is, in fact, Treason.

the infowarrior

28 posted on 04/22/2013 7:41:38 PM PDT by infowarrior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: xzins

One of the consequences of the Miranda ruling and having to “Mirandize” suspects is that people can now get lazy about their Constitutional liberties. If we reward lasy, dummies we’ll get more of them.


29 posted on 04/22/2013 7:44:19 PM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: kingu
Was it an overt act of war? It was done in the open, at least two witnesses can be produced to bear witness to the act, and firing upon forces seems like a continuation of that act...

I’d say it’d have a good chance of passing judicial review as being acts of treason.

An excellent summation. Now, for the $64,000.00 question. Was is this not applied to this case, or even more importantly, the case of Nidal Hasan?

the infowarrior

30 posted on 04/22/2013 7:59:04 PM PDT by infowarrior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

This is a dead issue now (at least for this guy) as he was read his Miranda rights, by the judge at his hearing today. His lawyer was right at his side, too!


31 posted on 04/22/2013 8:18:04 PM PDT by Star Traveler (Remember to keep the Messiah of Israel in the One-World Government that we look forward to coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson