Breaking News...FAR right wing Supreme Court strikes down Miranda rights 5-4

[del]

Well who else would know about false confessions more than they do?

You think the prosecutors or the cops would ever admit to it?

no, i don't. that doesn't mean that a defense attorney isn't going to shade things his way-that's what they're paid to do.

requiring someone to say "i wish to invoke my right to remain silent" or words to that effect, just doesn't seem quite the same as beating a confession out of them with a rubber hose. excuse me for not being able to work up a nice frothy head of angst over it.

of course, i'm a STATIST and a peabrain

I never called you a statist do try to keep up.

You think the cops are going to tell them they need to say so? My bet is the cops will leave out that part and then abuse the fact that they never formally used that right.

i never said you did. do try to keep up.

there will always be bad cops; the majority play by the rules.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Right wing scumbags won't let murderers walk EVEN AFTER THEY ADMIT TO THE DEED!!!

It's a sad, sad day. I'm especially sad that Van Chester Thompkins can't move next door to Bfrgn.

and everyone who confesses is guilty. and the cops never coerce or concoct a confession. and there is no evidence to support the idea that sometimes police work is sloppy at best, corrupt at worst. and we should keep drilling no matter the consequences and we should deport all Latinos and we should always allow corporations to decide what's best for our society and we're all going to be millionaires so let's lower taxes.

that's about it for the Conservative talking points, isn't it?

The last time I was on jury duty a mostly white jury acquitted a young black male of robbery his signed confession notwithstanding. Also, you stuffed so much hackery into a single post I'm at my Hackery Intake allowance for the week

 

[CrusaderFrank]

and everyone who confesses is guilty. and the cops never coerce or concoct a confession. and there is no evidence to support the idea that sometimes police work is sloppy at best, corrupt at worst. and we should keep drilling no matter the consequences and we should deport all Latinos and we should always allow corporations to decide what's best for our society and we're all going to be millionaires so let's lower taxes.

that's about it for the Conservative talking points, isn't it?

Your mindless libbie talking pointless is stale and stupid.

As a rule, people decline to confess to crimes they did not commit. I cannot imagine what kind of police conduct in the real world (as opposed to your delusional paranoid libtarded world) would induce me to falsely claim responsibility for a murder or a rape if I wasn't guilty. News flash, genius: although there have been some bad cops, rogue cops, criminal cops in our history, for the most part, they are not the bad guys DESPITE your comic book view of reality.

Has it ever happened, historically, that a bad cop has coerced an innocent person into "confessing" a crime he didn't actually commit? Sure. But it is precisely that kind of thing that the jury system is designed to root out. That the judicial/criminal-justice system is less than wholly perfect is conceded. And? It's still pretty freakin' good. The proper focus of efforts to correct it would therefore logically be found in the realm of making trials ever more fair.

It is not found in making it nearly impossible for honest cops to get guilty people to freely talk at all.

Hey Frank, I was wrong. I misread the ruling. But I am still against it. Laws and rulings need to protect the citizen. Police officers already possess powers and resources way beyond what an average citizen can match. Try to imagine if a local cop physically abused you. Would you go after him legally, or keep your mouth shut because he knows where you live and he and his fellow officers could make living in your town a nightmare? I know your right wing mind never explores those thoughts.

I am also very critical of this court because it seems all their 5/4 conservative rulings continue to take AWAY rights from the little guy, the average citizens instead of adding protection.

But what really stands out for all to see as I read your posts; your avid and passionate defense of officers of the STATE is impossible to ignore. I guess statism only applies to liberals when they foolishly believe that incompetent boobs of government can create programs that help people. But when the state arrests, incarcerates and executes human beings, it is extremely competent and efficient.

Liability and I really are 2 different people.

I have to give you rep for finally reading the ruling and admitting the truth

 

[Liability]

I'm libertarian and I believe Miranda should not be watered down in any way.

Why not?

What part of the Miranda decision actually makes sense?

It is not enough that a suspect HAS a right to remain silent?

No. One of the main bases for the Miranda decision was the realization that, while all criminal suspects HAVE the right to remain silent and the right to counsel, not very many of them REALIZE they have those rights, especially at the point in the criminal investigation when they have just been arrested and are being interrogated by police. So, practically speaking, it is as if they do not have those rights, because no one "has" something they are not aware of.

Accordingly, Miranda required police to advise all suspects of their right to remain silent and their right to counsel prior to any custodial interrogation, whether it appeared that they knew they had those rights or not. I think this aspect of Miranda makes perfect sense.

Never mind that the vast majority of suspects spill their guts even after they have been Mirandized. That's another issue.

You have set forth the modern American "liberal" position on that question. And it's quite absurd.

We are -- in other matters -- all presumed to be aware of the law. Thus the famed (and generally accurate) expression: "ignorance of the law is no excuse." Yet for some silly reason, that same rule doesn't apply to people with regard to knowing their own Constitutional rights.

When Donny Dirt commits a crime, it is appropriate in our system, to accord him the right not to be compelled to be a witness against himself. It is quite another matter to be required to give the lad a civics lesson. If he doesn't know that he has the right to remain silent (which he should know, and his ignorance ought to be no excuse), then that's his problem.

As for you final sentence, you're partly right. Lots of criminal suspects upon being arrested GET their Miranda warning rights read to them. Here in NY, quite often, the officers even save the form they used to read those rights because they took the time to have the suspect initial each one and sign the form. Despite all of this, lots of these defendants still manage to chirp like canaries (often because they believe that what they are saying is somehow helpful to them even when it really isn't).

And if one of them wants to confess to a kidnapping a rape or a murder along the way, what is the freakin' POINT of the cops giving him warnings designed to shut him down? It's an absurd rule.

And yesterday's ruling doesn't change that rule. Cops still have to give suspects in custody their Miranda warnings and get a knowing and voluntary waiver of those rights from the suspect before interrogation.

 

[FA_Q2]

I do not see the issue here. The only thing that has changed is that you have to take your right in order to use it and I see that as a PROTECTION more than anything, for both sides. I can now say I wish to remain silent and the questioning must cease, a protection for me that is far better than a fuzzy remain silent for some time or other and then we will stop. It also makes a clear line, something all laws need, for the police that defines when the right to remain silent has been invoked. I do not see any danger in this.

George, you seem to have the best lead on this. I have to ask why you believe that remaining silent should still be invoking the right when there is no real way of defining that. To me, it allows questioning and police bully tactics to continue where invoking your right ceases the process immediately.

 

[Liability]

Oh and liability, I can't find the old post so forgive me if the details are off but yes I believe that if someone remains silent for an hour then police should take the hint and realize they're using their right to remain silent.

Why?

A guy isn't allowed to think before speaking?

If a guy invokes his right to stop and think before speaking, why should we be obliged to pretend that what he's really doing is forever invoking his right to remain silent?

Remaining silent for an hour is a one hour invocation of a right to be silent. It is simply not the same as an assertion of a desire to REMAIN silent. In fact, that baseless presumption is undercut by the fact that he instead chose to go ahead and yak AFTER the hour is up.

 

[FA_Q2]

Bfgrn,

You seem to have a very strong opinion about this and at least appear to be somewhat educated on the subject matter. Now, I understand that the cop jedi mind-tricked the suspect into incriminating himself, but I don't see how this was a violation of his rights. Can you explain to me why you are adamant that it was?

What concerns me about this ruling, besides the fact we have an activist court making laws, is that this ruling changes the Miranda law going forward. It chips away at the presumption of innocence. If you are ever arrested, your innocence will be little protection, and you best know that going forward. People that knowingly commit crime know the laws. It is the innocent person that usually says something out of anger or incredulity that gets them in trouble.

It in no way does this at all. The ONLY thing this ruling does is require the individual in question to actively take the right to remain silent instead of passively obtaining it by simply not talking. You can still remain silent all you want, you just need to take the right to cease the interrogation.

 

[goldcatt]

Bfgrn,

You seem to have a very strong opinion about this and at least appear to be somewhat educated on the subject matter. Now, I understand that the cop jedi mind-tricked the suspect into incriminating himself, but I don't see how this was a violation of his rights. Can you explain to me why you are adamant that it was?

What concerns me about this ruling, besides the fact we have an activist court making laws, is that this ruling changes the Miranda law going forward. It chips away at the presumption of innocence. If you are ever arrested, your innocence will be little protection, and you best know that going forward. People that knowingly commit crime know the laws. It is the innocent person that usually says something out of anger or incredulity that gets them in trouble.

It in no way does this at all. The ONLY thing this ruling does is require the individual in question to actively take the right to remain silent instead of passively obtaining it by simply not talking. You can still remain silent all you want, you just need to take the right to cease the interrogation.

And on a practical level I'm fine with that, so long as the Miranda warning's language is changed to reflect it. What I have an issue with is telling a suspect one thing and doing another.

On a theoretical level I have a problem with requiring affirmative steps to invoke a passive right, but the law is full of those kinds of logical pretzels.

 

[Valerie]

What concerns me about this ruling, besides the fact we have an activist court making laws, is that this ruling changes the Miranda law going forward. It chips away at the presumption of innocence. If you are ever arrested, your innocence will be little protection, and you best know that going forward. People that knowingly commit crime know the laws. It is the innocent person that usually says something out of anger or incredulity that gets them in trouble.

It in no way does this at all. The ONLY thing this ruling does is require the individual in question to actively take the right to remain silent instead of passively obtaining it by simply not talking. You can still remain silent all you want, you just need to take the right to cease the interrogation.

And on a practical level I'm fine with that, so long as the Miranda warning's language is changed to reflect it. What I have an issue with is telling a suspect one thing and doing another.

On a theoretical level I have a problem with requiring affirmative steps to invoke a passive right, but the law is full of those kinds of logical pretzels.

The other troubling thing is that although the officer is required to give the Miranda rights, the officer is not required to inform the suspect that they must verbally invoke their right to remain silent in order to cease the interrogation process.

 

[goldcatt]

It in no way does this at all. The ONLY thing this ruling does is require the individual in question to actively take the right to remain silent instead of passively obtaining it by simply not talking. You can still remain silent all you want, you just need to take the right to cease the interrogation.

And on a practical level I'm fine with that, so long as the Miranda warning's language is changed to reflect it. What I have an issue with is telling a suspect one thing and doing another.

On a theoretical level I have a problem with requiring affirmative steps to invoke a passive right, but the law is full of those kinds of logical pretzels.

The other troubling thing is that although the officer is required to give the Miranda rights, the officer is not required to inform the suspect that they must verbally invoke their right to remain silent in order to cease the interrogation process.

Sorry if I wasn't clear, that's exactly what I was referring to.

Tell a person they have the right to remain silent and leave it at that, the natural and logical conclusion is they take advantage of the right to be silent by, of course, being silent. Not by speaking up to say they want to be silent.

I like Miranda. This rule does have the benefit of clarity. But the two have to match or it's hiding the ball.

 

[George Costanza]

You have set forth the modern American "liberal" position on that question. And it's quite absurd.

We are -- in other matters -- all presumed to be aware of the law. Thus the famed (and generally accurate) expression: "ignorance of the law is no excuse." Yet for some silly reason, that same rule doesn't apply to people with regard to knowing their own Constitutional rights.

Yup. That is exactly the case. I think the law draws a distinction between rules which apply to the commission of a crime (ignorance of the law is no excuse) and the procedural rules which apply in the investigation and prosecution of a crime.

I guess a person's opinion on this issue pretty much depends on how that person views a suspect in a criminal case. I (and I think most liberals) view a criminal suspect as innocent until proven guilty and also as an extremely weak individual suddenly subjected to the awesome power of the State, all of which adds up to the idea that, in such a situation, the suspect deserves every break he can get. Those with your perspective on it view criminal suspects as probably guilty and rules such as Miranda as a bothersome impediment to police investigation and subsequent criminal prosecution.

As always, there is some merit in both views. I like mine better.

As for you final sentence, you're partly right. Lots of criminal suspects upon being arrested GET their Miranda warning rights read to them. Here in NY, quite often, the officers even save the form they used to read those rights because they took the time to have the suspect initial each one and sign the form. Despite all of this, lots of these defendants still manage to chirp like canaries (often because they believe that what they are saying is somehow helpful to them even when it really isn't).

Here in CA, we also have Miranda forms which officers routinely have the suspect/defendant sign indicating he was advised, waived, etc.

I tear my hair time and time again over these cement heads who spill their guts following a Miranda warning - but I understand it. And know who is the worst? The well educated, white collar criminals. They sing like Caruso, once again because they think they have something to gain.

A popular ruse here lately is the "letter of apology" where the police have the suspect write out a "letter of apology" to the victim, i.e., a full confession. I once had a cop have the defendant write a letter of apology in a dope case, I kid you not. A flipping VICTIMLESS CRIME, and this moron is writing out a "letter of apology." Whom did he address it to? You got it: "To Whom It May Concern." Sheeesshhhhh!!!

And yesterday's ruling doesn't change that rule. Cops still have to give suspects in custody their Miranda warnings and get a knowing and voluntary waiver of those rights from the suspect before interrogation.

Yup.

 

[George Costanza]

I applaud this decision. Hopefully it will decide this case:

MAYS LANDING - Nicholas Nigro III just wanted to go home, his attorney said Thursday.

So as he neared his 12th hour in an interrogation room, Nigro admitted he killed his girlfriend and her mother inside their Egg Harbor Township home Sept. 30.

Superior Court Judge Michael Donio will rule next week whether that videotaped confession should be suppressed.

"The confession he gave was probably the most hateful thing I ever heard," Chief Assistant Prosecutor Cary Shill said Thursday in oral arguments that followed several previous hearings during which investigators testified.

In the confession, Nigro, now 26, says he shot the 48-year-old mother, MariJane Buri, first so his girlfriend "would hear it." Paula Mulder, 21, did and tried to run from her bedroom across the hall, but Nigro said he stopped her, forced her back into her bed and shot her twice.

Grassi said that no matter when Nigro invoked his rights, he should have been read his Miranda rights again prior to accepting his confession. Shill sited three Supreme Court cases that say fresh Miranda warnings are not necessary.

Donio is expected to announce his decision Thursday morning.

Judge will decide next week whether Nicholas Nigro III's double homicide admission was legally obtained - pressofAtlanticCity.com

They are arguing that Miranda should have been read a SECOND time. Bullshit.

How about this one. D is arrested. He is Mirandized and invokes, i.e., he "lawyers up" and says he won't talk. That's at midnight. The next morning, a detective comes to his cell and says: "Are you sure you don't want to talk to us? We can really do some good for you on this case if you do." D says: "OK, I'll talk." They Mirandize him and he gives a full confession. Admissible?

Not under present law. Know why not? Because the second contact with police (the visit from the detective in the morning) was not initiated by the defendant but, rather, by the police. If the defendant had yelled out to a guard, "Hey, I've changed my mind, I want to talk. Send a detective in here," it would have been OK and they could have used his confession.

But police are not allowed to keep hammering away at a defendant once he has invoked his Miranda rights. Any further questioning has to be at the suggestion of the defendant.

How do ya like THEM apples?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

My two cents.

If anyone needs their rights read to them then they should be shot on sight. Every American citizen should already know their rights from reading six simple pages the last being the Bill of Rights. Don't they teach this shit in school?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Must the officer also remind a suspect not to confess?

 

[George Costanza]

Must the officer also remind a suspect not to confess?

That's the MOST ridiculous thing I've EVER hoid of . . . . (waggles eyebrows, taps cigar and steps quickly off stage).

 

[Liability]

I applaud this decision. Hopefully it will decide this case:

MAYS LANDING - Nicholas Nigro III just wanted to go home, his attorney said Thursday.

So as he neared his 12th hour in an interrogation room, Nigro admitted he killed his girlfriend and her mother inside their Egg Harbor Township home Sept. 30.

Superior Court Judge Michael Donio will rule next week whether that videotaped confession should be suppressed.

"The confession he gave was probably the most hateful thing I ever heard," Chief Assistant Prosecutor Cary Shill said Thursday in oral arguments that followed several previous hearings during which investigators testified.

In the confession, Nigro, now 26, says he shot the 48-year-old mother, MariJane Buri, first so his girlfriend "would hear it." Paula Mulder, 21, did and tried to run from her bedroom across the hall, but Nigro said he stopped her, forced her back into her bed and shot her twice.

Grassi said that no matter when Nigro invoked his rights, he should have been read his Miranda rights again prior to accepting his confession. Shill sited three Supreme Court cases that say fresh Miranda warnings are not necessary.

Donio is expected to announce his decision Thursday morning.

Judge will decide next week whether Nicholas Nigro III's double homicide admission was legally obtained - pressofAtlanticCity.com

They are arguing that Miranda should have been read a SECOND time. Bullshit.

How about this one. D is arrested. He is Mirandized and invokes, i.e., he "lawyers up" and says he won't talk. That's at midnight. The next morning, a detective comes to his cell and says: "Are you sure you don't want to talk to us? We can really do some good for you on this case if you do." D says: "OK, I'll talk." They Mirandize him and he gives a full confession. Admissible?

Not under present law. Know why not? Because the second contact with police (the visit from the detective in the morning) was not initiated by the defendant but, rather, by the police. If the defendant had yelled out to a guard, "Hey, I've changed my mind, I want to talk. Send a detective in here," it would have been OK and they could have used his confession.

But police are not allowed to keep hammering away at a defendant once he has invoked his Miranda rights. Any further questioning has to be at the suggestion of the defendant.

How do ya like THEM apples?

Actually, in that example, the statement (in NY) would absolutely be subject to getting suppressed. Why? Because once a suspect in custody in NY invokes his right to COUNSEL (as distinguished from the separate right to remain silent), he cannot validly waive that right EXCEPT IN THE PRESENCE of counsel.

How 'bout DEM apples?

 

[lawbuff]

My two cents.

If anyone needs their rights read to them then they should be shot on sight. Every American citizen should already know their rights from reading six simple pages the last being the Bill of Rights. Don't they teach this shit in school?

When I was in High school, they never taught that the BoR as ratified and in full force and effect in 1791, did not apply to the states, if I remember correctly.

There are some that still think the passage of the 14th AM in 1868 "automatically" applied the BoR to the states? Not true. I bet the high schools today still do not teach of the incorporation doctrine??

In Barron v. Baltimore, 1833, the great CJ John Marshall penned that the BoR did NOT apply to the states.

The SC makes law, they ammend thier own law, fact of life.


I am curious, and there is probably no way of finding out, what the Certiorari vote was on this case?? Was it 4, 5, 6, 7, (?) as it only takes 4.

Who voted for Certiorari, and what was the final corresponding vote?

 

[goldcatt]

My two cents.

If anyone needs their rights read to them then they should be shot on sight. Every American citizen should already know their rights from reading six simple pages the last being the Bill of Rights. Don't they teach this shit in school?

When I was in High school, they never taught that the BoR as ratified and in full force and effect in 1791, did not apply to the states, if I remember correctly.

There are some that still think the passage of the 14th AM in 1868 "automatically" applied the BoR to the states? Not true. I bet the high schools today still do not teach of the incorporation doctrine??

In Barron v. Baltimore, 1833, the great CJ John Marshall penned that the BoR did NOT apply to the states.

The SC makes law, they ammend thier own law, fact of life.


I am curious, and there is probably no way of finding out, what the Certiorari vote was on this case?? Was it 4, 5, 6, 7, (?) as it only takes 4.

Who voted for Certiorari, and what was the final corresponding vote?

That's always an interesting question, I haven't looked it up. Honestly this case wasn't on my radar. Conventional wisdom said it would be a narrowly tailored decision affirming the status quo. Boy was that wrong.

 

[lawbuff]

That's always an interesting question, I haven't looked it up. Honestly this case wasn't on my radar. Conventional wisdom said it would be a narrowly tailored decision affirming the status quo. Boy was that wrong.

I have this bookmarked. Start at par. 8. The study was done to see what Justices voted for Certioari and what thier final vote was. Did the certirorari group vote to affirm or overturn??

http://www.aallnet.org/products/pub_llj_v92n02/2000-17.pdf

Now it may be hard to find out unless you wrote to the Reporter of Decisions.

 

[George Costanza]

My two cents.

If anyone needs their rights read to them then they should be shot on sight. Every American citizen should already know their rights from reading six simple pages the last being the Bill of Rights. Don't they teach this shit in school?

When I was in High school, they never taught that the BoR as ratified and in full force and effect in 1791, did not apply to the states, if I remember correctly.

There are some that still think the passage of the 14th AM in 1868 "automatically" applied the BoR to the states? Not true. I bet the high schools today still do not teach of the incorporation doctrine??

In Barron v. Baltimore, 1833, the great CJ John Marshall penned that the BoR did NOT apply to the states.

The SC makes law, they ammend thier own law, fact of life.

I don't know when you were in high school, but the application of the Bill of Rights to state action was implemented through a series of USSC decisions, some of which were rendered in the 1940's, a few in the 1950's and many of them in the 1960's.

You sound like you disagree with the incorporation doctrine, is that the case? If so, why?