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. 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.
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?
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.
It apparently takes training or life experiences. As an old fart, I now have both.
I like Alysin Camerota, but sometimes she get things wrong, I could just scream
“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).
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.
The Miranda Warning got "invented" when I was a teenager; since then, criminality has gone rampant.
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
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.
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
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!
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.