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.
The correct pronunciation is either Jah Kahr or Joh Kahr. I think Joker is perfect, and that’s what I call him.
I concur.
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!
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.
Is she your latest girlfriend, Paladin2?
No, she likes to wear fruity hats, but that’s her right.
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.
Nope, I'm not a necrophiliac. You?
I think we need to go back to requiring jurors be informed of their rights.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.