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a current case that seeks to change the law, the US Justice Department argues that the existing rule is unnecessary and outdated.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 ...
Oh we get it all right, but don't think the police should have the power to continue to question and coerce you after you've invoked your 5th amendment right and right to counsel. If you think it's a small matter, perhaps you should look up the youtube video by Professor James Duane and Officer George Bruch.
If Bush had done this, FR would have supported it.
As for me, I think President Obama did the right thing here. Even a blind hog finds an acorn ...
Even a blind squirrel? Or a means to be able to suspend habeas corpus?
How long until there is a ‘terrorist attack’ on the building that houses the original constitution(q)
Not long and as a result of the ‘attack’ Obama will suspend Habeus Corpus.
Replace "Obama" with "Bush" and imagine the outrage we would be hearing from Liberals. However, because the Liberal Messiah is making this request, they have no problem with this request.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Liberalism
I’m much more puzzled by the comments here on this post than by Obama’s actions. Seeking connections; power... these are not the things that drive the little dictator.
The people he surrounded himself with coming up were not people who sought political power or fame but people who were seeking ultimate control. This is much different than political power. What he believes is that people are stupid and that he is a visionary with a better way. He is acting completely within the parameters of his “belief system” (dang I hate that phrase.. but it fits).
Look at his Kenyan buddies (Odinga. As in “Maybe Odinga got your baby). He loves the idea of being the ruler of a third world country. The best way he can accomplish this is to make the country he currently presides over a third world country.
Looks to me his scheme is right on track. Goodbye freedom!
Impeachment, anyone?
“If Bush had done this, FR would have supported it.”
Speak for yourself, Chachi.
Or maybe we don’t quite understand what it is he is doing here. Isn’t the idea that if you are being questioned by interrogators and you ask for a lawyer you will be denied that? I don’t think you will find 10 people on this site who believe that’s a good idea whoever the president is. Especially knowing what folks here think of government excess.
They SHOULD do away with Michigan vs Jackson.
If someone decides to voluntarily waive their right to counsel and go ahead and talk to the police, even though he does have a lawyer, where in the Constitution does it say he is not allowed to talk to the police if he wants to? Absurd.
Isn’t it amazing that people were arrested and tried in this country for 180 years on a routine unconstitutional basis because the suspects were not read a Miranda warning? And all of our most celebrated jurists during those years like Holmes and Cardozo just happened to miss the boat on this unconstitutionality!
Who knows what else we are still doing unconstitutionally after over two centuries but that a liberal justice hasn’t yet told us about?
You have no rights, you right wing extremist! Rights are reserved for liberals!
Okay...maybe the analytical aspect of my legal mind has slipped since law school; but since when does a President decide when to “overrule” a case, especially when said case is 23 year old precedent and not before the Court.
Hell, I say we just burn the whole Constitution. I mean, honestly, that whole First Amendment Freedom of Speech thing - talk about serving no real purpose and “meagre” benefits....Envision my head exploding NOW! /rant
What will the ACLU say about this?
The ACLU is on the right side in this case. They submitted an amicus brief to affirm Jackson. In a separate brief, several former federal judges, US Attorneys and Former FBI Director William Sessions also submitted a brief to uphold Jackson. The only people wanting it to be overturned are prosecutors who want an easier way to convict innocent people.
The ACLU has plenty to say, along with a lot of other parties. Here is the brief on behalf of the ACLU and several other organizations The ACLU is on the right side of this case.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/nacdl-et-al-4-14-09.pdf
Links to other briefs can be found here:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/?s=Jackson
If you read the briefs in this case, you would never come to the conclusion that he guy voluntarily waived his right to counsel. If the CIA treated a terrorist like this guy was treated, Obama would have that CIA agent prosecuted.
Read the briefs before you make your comment. You look like an idiot otherwise.
Whether in a particular case someone did or did not voluntarily waive his right to counsel is a question of fact, not a question of law.
If a person was really coerced into waiving his right to counsel, his constitutional rights were violated. That is true WHETHER OR NOT the law as a constitutional matter is as set forth in Michigan vs Jackson.
Stick to football.
If you would read the briefs, you would see that the facts demonstrate that his waiver was not voluntary.
That’s not the point. The point is we don’t need the silly “prophylactic” rule in Michigan vs Jackson in order to remedy involuntary waivers.
Sometimes witnesses lie when giving testimony. One way to avoid that happening is to not allow any witnesses to give any testimony, as a prophylactic rule.
Sometimes prosecutors bring charges against innocent people. One way to avoid that is to not allow prosecutors to bring charges against anyone, as a prophylactic rule.
And those examples are not so far beyond Michigan vs Jackson in their absurdity, to demonstrate the point.
In the case of very serious crimes, it is becoming standard practice in many jurisdictions to record police interrogations. So in these serious cases, we can typically expect there to be evidence for a judge to evaluate in deciding whether a waiver was voluntary - not merely a he said/he said situation. Michigan vs. Jackson goes way beyond what is necessary or reasonable, and certainly very far beyond what is constitutionally required.
People seem to get the idea these days, perhaps because of television shows, that any serious crime can be solved like magic by an attractive team of scientists applying highly sophisticated technology. In fact, many serious crimes would go unsolved if the perpetrator did not incriminate himself in speaking to investigators. Sometimes human beings feel the weight of guilt for their actions bearing them down, and there may be a brief moment when someone decides to take responsibility for what they have done when speaking to investigators. And at another point in time the same person may decide not to take responsibility but to try to get away with the crime, hoping the police do not have sufficient evidence to prevail against him. The only constitutional question pertaining to this particular issue is whether waiving presence of counsel and making statements to investigators was or was not voluntary.
Michigan vs Jackson is a silly and unnecessary rule, and certainly not constitutionally required.
bttt
If prosecutors and cops could be trusted to be honest and to only seek justice, Jackson would not be needed. Unfortunately too many of them can’t be trusted and are more interested in getting a conviction rather than making sure the right person is convicted.
But why would the Court even ask for briefs on the issue if most of the justices weren’t considering overruling it? It’d be an odd thing to do if only three votes were there. The Court may ultimately decide not to overrule it, that’s true, but what makes you think Scalia and Thomas are in favor of Jackson? I wasn’t surprised by their votes in the recent auto search case, but this is quite different.
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.