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

[George Costanza]

If you honestly think innocent people are never intimidated or threatened into giving a false confession ... well you have a lot to learn.

i'm sure innocent people confess to murder all the time

December 2007, Page 30

The Problem of False Confession in America
By Richard A. Leo

In 1998 two young boys in Chicago – ages seven and eight – were charged with murdering an eleven-year-old girl named Ryan Harris. She had been badly beaten around the head, her underpants had been stuffed into her mouth, and she appeared to have been sexually assaulted. After an unrecorded interrogation, the two boys “confessed” to hitting Harris in the head with a brick (and then stuffing leaves and grass in her nose) in order to steal her bicycle. Largely because of the boys’ ages, the case attracted national media attention. The country was horrified that two prepubescent boys were capable of committing so savage a crime. Although the evidence pointed to an adult sex crime, the police insisted that the two boys were not too young to have done it, and that they knew details that could only be known to the detectives or the perpetrators.

Months later, however, the Illinois State Crime Laboratory discovered semen on Ryan Harris’ underpants – evidence that the crime could not have been committed by suspects as young as seven and eight – and prosecutors dismissed the charges. The collected DNA was later shown to match the DNA of Floyd Durr, an adult already charged with sexually assaulting three other young girls in the same neighborhood. Durr subsequently admitted being present and committing a sex act over Harris’ body.1

The Ryan Harris case is not an isolated one. Nor are false confessions limited to children or teenagers. In recent years, police have elicited a substantial number of demonstrably false confessions from adults.2 Many of these false confessions have led to erroneous prosecutions, and some have led to wrongful convictions and incarceration.3 Some of the wrongfully convicted false confessors have spent many years unjustly incarcerated before being exonerated and released; others remain behind bars.4 A number of exonerated false confessors were convicted of capital crimes and sentenced to death.5 One false confessor, Earl Washington, spent almost ten of his more than seventeen years of imprisonment on Virginia’s death row and came within nine days of being executed before being exonerated in 2001.6 Researchers and activists believe that several other innocent confessors have been executed – Edward Earl Johnson in 1987,7 Barry Lee Fairchild in 1995,8 Leo Jones in 1998,9 and Dobie Gillis Williams in 1999.10

Throughout American history, police-induced false confessions have been among the leading causes of wrongful conviction.11 It is easy to understand how beatings, torture, sleep deprivation, and threats of violence may lead an innocent suspect to falsely confess. Yet with psychological interrogation methods, the idea that an innocent person would confess to a crime he did not commit – particularly to a felony that carries the possibility of a lengthy prison sentence or even the death penalty – is highly counter-intuitive.12
The Problem of False Confession in America

FYI - the author of the linked article, Richard Leo, is a personal friend of mine. He has testified for me in three cases, one of them an extremely difficult murder case (which ended in a not guilty verdict). I atteneded a seminar where he was one of the cheif speakers about three weeks ago.

Richard Leo is truly the guru of false confessions. I congratulate you on locating and citing one of his articles.

 

[syrenn]

What you folks need to understand is, that once police focus on a suspect, any and all conversations they have with him/her are for one purpose and one purpose only - to get the suspect to say something that will incriminate him/her. They are not "trying to learn the truth." They don't want to hear the truth, unless it fortifies their already made up minds on the subject of the suspect's guilt.

Even with the police required to give Miranda warnings, the vast majority of misguided suspects will spill their guts to the cops, thinking it will help them out of the situation they find themselves in. Cops lie to suspects at every turn in order to get them to talk, i.e., confess.

The defendant has told the field officers who came to arrest him that he wasn't anywhere near the crime scene. He didn't even know the dead guy. (And this happens to be the truth.) Now, here comes the detective in the "interview" room, following the suspect's arrest:

"Look, I understand how these things happen. He comes at you, you defend yourself. If that's they way it went down, you aren't guilty of anything and should have this whole thing cleared up in a couple of days at the outside. On the other hand, it this investigation proceeds they way it looks now, without your input, you could well be finding yourself headed toward the death penalty. So what happened? Was it self defense?"

Now, all of a sudden, the innocent suspect is being confronted with a choice: implicate yourself in such a manner that you will "have the matter all cleared up in a couple of days" or face the possibility of the death penalty. Ever wonder why innocent people confess to crimes they did not commit?

So that's why Miranda is SO important. I have not had a chance to fully digest the OP yet. When I do, I'll be back . . .

Yes, I do know about all of this That doesn't change my opinion that throwing it out is a good idea. Obviously a few Supremes think so too.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What you folks need to understand is, that once police focus on a suspect, any and all conversations they have with him/her are for one purpose and one purpose only - to get the suspect to say something that will incriminate him/her. They are not "trying to learn the truth." They don't want to hear the truth, unless it fortifies their already made up minds on the subject of the suspect's guilt.

Even with the police required to give Miranda warnings, the vast majority of misguided suspects will spill their guts to the cops, thinking it will help them out of the situation they find themselves in. Cops lie to suspects at every turn in order to get them to talk, i.e., confess.

The defendant has told the field officers who came to arrest him that he wasn't anywhere near the crime scene. He didn't even know the dead guy. (And this happens to be the truth.) Now, here comes the detective in the "interview" room, following the suspect's arrest:

"Look, I understand how these things happen. He comes at you, you defend yourself. If that's they way it went down, you aren't guilty of anything and should have this whole thing cleared up in a couple of days at the outside. On the other hand, it this investigation proceeds they way it looks now, without your input, you could well be finding yourself headed toward the death penalty. So what happened? Was it self defense?"

Now, all of a sudden, the innocent suspect is being confronted with a choice: implicate yourself in such a manner that you will "have the matter all cleared up in a couple of days" or face the possibility of the death penalty. Ever wonder why innocent people confess to crimes they did not commit?

So that's why Miranda is SO important. I have not had a chance to fully digest the OP yet. When I do, I'll be back . . .

I actually read about this before I signed in today. I cannot say that I think cops need the extra latitude given them in this decision, but I do not see it as an outright attack on Miranda either. I have to agree with the common sense argument that if a suspects talks after being read his rights he has waived them implicitly. I don't know if it is going to work as well in the real world as it does in my head though.

I think the part I will have the most problem with is that the police are allowed to continue the interrogation for an indefinite period if, after being read his rights, he does not say anything. Most police departments require interrogations to end unless the suspect explicitly waives his rights, which is good policy.

I do not see this as breaking new ground, despite the outcries of the left. I am surprised that Sotomayor's dissent is so vehement as I expected her to be more police friendly in her opinions.

 

[Bfgrn]

What you folks need to understand is, that once police focus on a suspect, any and all conversations they have with him/her are for one purpose and one purpose only - to get the suspect to say something that will incriminate him/her. They are not "trying to learn the truth." They don't want to hear the truth, unless it fortifies their already made up minds on the subject of the suspect's guilt.

Even with the police required to give Miranda warnings, the vast majority of misguided suspects will spill their guts to the cops, thinking it will help them out of the situation they find themselves in. Cops lie to suspects at every turn in order to get them to talk, i.e., confess.

The defendant has told the field officers who came to arrest him that he wasn't anywhere near the crime scene. He didn't even know the dead guy. (And this happens to be the truth.) Now, here comes the detective in the "interview" room, following the suspect's arrest:

"Look, I understand how these things happen. He comes at you, you defend yourself. If that's they way it went down, you aren't guilty of anything and should have this whole thing cleared up in a couple of days at the outside. On the other hand, it this investigation proceeds they way it looks now, without your input, you could well be finding yourself headed toward the death penalty. So what happened? Was it self defense?"

Now, all of a sudden, the innocent suspect is being confronted with a choice: implicate yourself in such a manner that you will "have the matter all cleared up in a couple of days" or face the possibility of the death penalty. Ever wonder why innocent people confess to crimes they did not commit?

So that's why Miranda is SO important. I have not had a chance to fully digest the OP yet. When I do, I'll be back . . .

I actually read about this before I signed in today. I cannot say that I think cops need the extra latitude given them in this decision, but I do not see it as an outright attack on Miranda either. I have to agree with the common sense argument that if a suspects talks after being read his rights he has waived them implicitly. I don't know if it is going to work as well in the real world as it does in my head though.

I think the part I will have the most problem with is that the police are allowed to continue the interrogation for an indefinite period if, after being read his rights, he does not say anything. Most police departments require interrogations to end unless the suspect explicitly waives his rights, which is good policy.

I do not see this as breaking new ground, despite the outcries of the left. I am surprised that Sotomayor's dissent is so vehement as I expected her to be more police friendly in her opinions.

If we lock everyone up, we will always get the guilty party. If some innocent people get locked up with them, it's no big deal................................
in RUSSIA!!!

What a bunch of ignorant fucks!

 

[Againsheila]

Wait until they reverse ObamaCare

and declare America an OFFICIAL CHRISTIAN nation

so only christians will have rights

If I believed in neg repping, that would get one. Christians would NEVER expect non-Christians to be treated any less by our government than anyone else. Any Christian would know that. Of course what boggles my mind is that Christians are treated as less by the people in our society and nobody bats an eye. Anti-Christian bigotry keeps rearing it's ugly head and YOU don't even notice you're doing it.

 

[Liability]

Do the American people need any MORE evidence right wing America is ANTI-freedom? What NEXT, guilty until proven innocent???

Court: Suspects must say they want to be silent

By JESSE J. HOLLAND (AP) – 1 hour ago

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that suspects must explicitly tell police they want to be silent to invoke Miranda protections during criminal interrogations, a decision one dissenting justice said turns defendants' rights "upside down."

A right to remain silent and a right to a lawyer are the first of the Miranda rights warnings, which police recite to suspects during arrests and interrogations. But the justices said in a 5-4 decision that suspects must tell police they are going to remain silent to stop an interrogation, just as they must tell police that they want a lawyer.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court's newest member, wrote a strongly worded dissent for the court's liberals, saying the majority's decision "turns Miranda upside down."

"Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent — which counter-intuitively, requires them to speak," she said. "At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so. Those results, in my view, find no basis in Miranda or our subsequent cases and are inconsistent with the fair-trial principles on which those precedents are grounded."

Holy cow! Imagine the FAR RIGHT ideology imposing common sense on the law enforcement issues associated with the asinine Miranda rule?

the cops still have to tell the suspects that they have the right to remain silent etc. But to obtain the benefit of that right, the suspect has now been saddled with the incredibly onerous burden of actually saying, "yes. I do wish to remain silent now."

The horror!

Getting back to reality from Bfgrn's liberal hysteria, now seems like a good time to observe that IT'S ABOUT FREAKIN' TIME!

 

[Bfgrn]

Where are all the libertarians on this issue...oh, they're not libertarians, they're authoritarian conservative statists!

Authoritarian Conservatism

by Bill Barnwell

Conservatives and the "Justice" System

Why have so many conservatives cheered on the legal persecution of Martha Stewart? It’s partly because most do not understand the federal system and what Stewart was even being charged with and partly because they just simply support an unfair legal system. Its part of their image of being "tough on crime" when in reality they are tough on freedom. While many conservatives are (allegedly) suspicious of government power, they are more than willing to support it unconditionally when it comes to matters of law. Thus the victim of police brutality always had it coming, the big corporate CEO on charges is always guilty, and the police, the feds and the prosecutors are always right.

Conservatives love the law. They rigidly adhere to it and see any deviation from the law as worthy of a beheading. Therefore, they are much more likely than leftists to support rigid maximum fines and penalties for even the slightest of transgressions. It is conservatives who support the outrageous fines and penalties for drug offenders. It is conservatives who pushed for the unfair and unjust "federal sentencing guidelines" (which make sure that small time federal offenders are punished in disproportionate amounts to the severity of the crimes they actually or supposedly committed) and it is conservatives who support many Police State measures such as the Patriot Act.

In the eyes of most conservatives, Martha broke the law. Cased closed. No questions asked. But those of us with a more libertarian disposition go even further than that. We want to know whether or not the law was just to begin with. Also, how do the enforcers of the law go about nabbing their target? Conservatives, by and large, are not willing to challenge whether or not the law is morally just. Nor do they care to spend a lot of time looking at some of the corrupt and deceitful practices of the police, feds, judges and prosecutors. In the beloved Police State of the mainstream Right, the bad guys are always the accused and the good guys are always the State. The State can do no wrong.

Each time a person stands accused, the conservative asks in a stone-faced and serious manner, "Is he guilty?" They instinctively believe that whenever the government brings an indictment or a charge, they must be correct. In their eyes a man or woman is guilty until proven innocent, not the other way around. Nor do they really want to consider that even if the accused person is guilty of what he or she is being accused of that the law itself may be unjust. That’s because they believe law and the system is never unjust. Power hungry cops and federal prosecutors along with phony legal offenses apparently are our friend and help keep us safe.

You also won’t find a whole lot of conservative sympathy for those who have been wrongly imprisoned or wrongly put to death by the State. These "law and order" types will just rationalize this problem away, either by denying that such cases exist, or by simply asserting some innocent people will have to suffer for the greater good. How this is conducive to the cause of freedom and liberty is questionable to say the least.

On matters of civil liberties, it is the Left that is more reliable than the Right (except on matters of religious liberties, where the Left wants to purge religion from society). In the eyes of the Right, only crazed hippies are opposed to the Patriot Act. Conservatives, who seem to love militarism, use war as an excuse to suck up all kinds of personal liberties. Besides, they reason, sometimes when you are fighting a war, you have to surrender some of your freedom. If you don’t agree, then you don’t care about national security, you are ignorant, and you can just leave the country.

Authoritarian Conservatism by Bill Barnwell

 

[Bfgrn]

Do the American people need any MORE evidence right wing America is ANTI-freedom? What NEXT, guilty until proven innocent???

Court: Suspects must say they want to be silent

By JESSE J. HOLLAND (AP) – 1 hour ago

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that suspects must explicitly tell police they want to be silent to invoke Miranda protections during criminal interrogations, a decision one dissenting justice said turns defendants' rights "upside down."

A right to remain silent and a right to a lawyer are the first of the Miranda rights warnings, which police recite to suspects during arrests and interrogations. But the justices said in a 5-4 decision that suspects must tell police they are going to remain silent to stop an interrogation, just as they must tell police that they want a lawyer.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court's newest member, wrote a strongly worded dissent for the court's liberals, saying the majority's decision "turns Miranda upside down."

"Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent — which counter-intuitively, requires them to speak," she said. "At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so. Those results, in my view, find no basis in Miranda or our subsequent cases and are inconsistent with the fair-trial principles on which those precedents are grounded."

Holy cow! Imagine the FAR RIGHT ideology imposing common sense on the law enforcement issues associated with the asinine Miranda rule?

the cops still have to tell the suspects that they have the right to remain silent etc. But to obtain the benefit of that right, the suspect has now been saddled with the incredibly onerous burden of actually saying, "yes. I do wish to remain silent now."

The horror!

Getting back to reality from Bfgrn's liberal hysteria, now seems like a good time to observe that IT'S ABOUT FREAKIN' TIME!

Hey pea brain...the cops DON'T have to tell the suspects that they have the right to remain silent etc.

Maybe you should wait until mommy comes home to read it to you.

 

[goldcatt]

Haven't read everything yet, but I'm not getting the impression the decision guts Miranda. What it does do is place the right to remain silent on the same footing with the right to an attorney - both will now have to be explicitly requested, instead of just the attorney. The right still exists.

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Silence is a passive right to take no action - why should one have to take action to invoke it? The right to an attorney is an affirmative right, it makes more sense that one should have to request it. I disagree with the outcome for that reason, it seems counterintuitive for those trying to invoke their rights, but it's not the end of civilization as we know it either.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If we lock everyone up, we will always get the guilty party. If some innocent people get locked up with them, it's no big deal................................
in RUSSIA!!!

What a bunch of ignorant fucks!

Did you read the ruling? Did you even read my post?

 

[del]

If you honestly think innocent people are never intimidated or threatened into giving a false confession ... well you have a lot to learn.

i'm sure innocent people confess to murder all the time

You don't think the prosecutors would have a reason to intimidate false confessions out of people?

having a reason to do something isn't quite the same as doing it, is it?

how does requiring someone to affirm their intention to be silent equal intimidation?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Haven't read everything yet, but I'm not getting the impression the decision guts Miranda. What it does do is place the right to remain silent on the same footing with the right to an attorney - both will now have to be explicitly requested, instead of just the attorney. The right still exists.

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Silence is a passive right to take no action - why should one have to take action to invoke it? The right to an attorney is an affirmative right, it makes more sense that one should have to request it. I disagree with the outcome for that reason, it seems counterintuitive for those trying to invoke their rights, but it's not the end of civilization as we know it either.

That is the part of the ruling I would have trouble with. I would think that just remaining silent would constitute exercising the right, and I hope later decisions clear that up. On the other hand, this guy did answer questions throughout the interrogation. I would think that if someone wants to remain silent, they actually have to do so. You shouldn't be able to talk, end up saying to much, and then claim you didn't waive the right to remain silent.

 

[del]

If you honestly think innocent people are never intimidated or threatened into giving a false confession ... well you have a lot to learn.

i'm sure innocent people confess to murder all the time

December 2007, Page 30

The Problem of False Confession in America
By Richard A. Leo

In 1998 two young boys in Chicago – ages seven and eight – were charged with murdering an eleven-year-old girl named Ryan Harris. She had been badly beaten around the head, her underpants had been stuffed into her mouth, and she appeared to have been sexually assaulted. After an unrecorded interrogation, the two boys “confessed” to hitting Harris in the head with a brick (and then stuffing leaves and grass in her nose) in order to steal her bicycle. Largely because of the boys’ ages, the case attracted national media attention. The country was horrified that two prepubescent boys were capable of committing so savage a crime. Although the evidence pointed to an adult sex crime, the police insisted that the two boys were not too young to have done it, and that they knew details that could only be known to the detectives or the perpetrators.

Months later, however, the Illinois State Crime Laboratory discovered semen on Ryan Harris’ underpants – evidence that the crime could not have been committed by suspects as young as seven and eight – and prosecutors dismissed the charges. The collected DNA was later shown to match the DNA of Floyd Durr, an adult already charged with sexually assaulting three other young girls in the same neighborhood. Durr subsequently admitted being present and committing a sex act over Harris’ body.1

The Ryan Harris case is not an isolated one. Nor are false confessions limited to children or teenagers. In recent years, police have elicited a substantial number of demonstrably false confessions from adults.2 Many of these false confessions have led to erroneous prosecutions, and some have led to wrongful convictions and incarceration.3 Some of the wrongfully convicted false confessors have spent many years unjustly incarcerated before being exonerated and released; others remain behind bars.4 A number of exonerated false confessors were convicted of capital crimes and sentenced to death.5 One false confessor, Earl Washington, spent almost ten of his more than seventeen years of imprisonment on Virginia’s death row and came within nine days of being executed before being exonerated in 2001.6 Researchers and activists believe that several other innocent confessors have been executed – Edward Earl Johnson in 1987,7 Barry Lee Fairchild in 1995,8 Leo Jones in 1998,9 and Dobie Gillis Williams in 1999.10

Throughout American history, police-induced false confessions have been among the leading causes of wrongful conviction.11 It is easy to understand how beatings, torture, sleep deprivation, and threats of violence may lead an innocent suspect to falsely confess. Yet with psychological interrogation methods, the idea that an innocent person would confess to a crime he did not commit – particularly to a felony that carries the possibility of a lengthy prison sentence or even the death penalty – is highly counter-intuitive.12
The Problem of False Confession in America

i'm sure that the national association of criminal defense attorneys is a completely unbiased source.

 

[The Rabbi]

Do the American people need any MORE evidence right wing America is ANTI-freedom? What NEXT, guilty until proven innocent???

Court: Suspects must say they want to be silent

By JESSE J. HOLLAND (AP) – 1 hour ago

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that suspects must explicitly tell police they want to be silent to invoke Miranda protections during criminal interrogations, a decision one dissenting justice said turns defendants' rights "upside down."

A right to remain silent and a right to a lawyer are the first of the Miranda rights warnings, which police recite to suspects during arrests and interrogations. But the justices said in a 5-4 decision that suspects must tell police they are going to remain silent to stop an interrogation, just as they must tell police that they want a lawyer.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court's newest member, wrote a strongly worded dissent for the court's liberals, saying the majority's decision "turns Miranda upside down."

"Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent — which counter-intuitively, requires them to speak," she said. "At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so. Those results, in my view, find no basis in Miranda or our subsequent cases and are inconsistent with the fair-trial principles on which those precedents are grounded."

Without reading either the ruling or the entire discussion here I can say your one brain cell has died of loneliness. The story does not support your misleading and mendacious headline.
Do you ever think about telling the truth? Do you even know how to recognize it?

 

[Bfgrn]

If we lock everyone up, we will always get the guilty party. If some innocent people get locked up with them, it's no big deal................................
in RUSSIA!!!

What a bunch of ignorant fucks!

Did you read the ruling? Did you even read my post?

I read both...you're an ignorant fuck.

 

[Liability]

Do the American people need any MORE evidence right wing America is ANTI-freedom? What NEXT, guilty until proven innocent???

Court: Suspects must say they want to be silent

By JESSE J. HOLLAND (AP) – 1 hour ago

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that suspects must explicitly tell police they want to be silent to invoke Miranda protections during criminal interrogations, a decision one dissenting justice said turns defendants' rights "upside down."

A right to remain silent and a right to a lawyer are the first of the Miranda rights warnings, which police recite to suspects during arrests and interrogations. But the justices said in a 5-4 decision that suspects must tell police they are going to remain silent to stop an interrogation, just as they must tell police that they want a lawyer.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court's newest member, wrote a strongly worded dissent for the court's liberals, saying the majority's decision "turns Miranda upside down."

"Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent — which counter-intuitively, requires them to speak," she said. "At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so. Those results, in my view, find no basis in Miranda or our subsequent cases and are inconsistent with the fair-trial principles on which those precedents are grounded."

Holy cow! Imagine the FAR RIGHT ideology imposing common sense on the law enforcement issues associated with the asinine Miranda rule?

the cops still have to tell the suspects that they have the right to remain silent etc. But to obtain the benefit of that right, the suspect has now been saddled with the incredibly onerous burden of actually saying, "yes. I do wish to remain silent now."

The horror!

Getting back to reality from Bfgrn's liberal hysteria, now seems like a good time to observe that IT'S ABOUT FREAKIN' TIME!

Hey pea brain...the cops DON'T have to tell the suspects that they have the right to remain silent etc.

Maybe you should wait until mommy comes home to read it to you.

Your lack of comprehension is not my problem, you bombastic but confused little pinhead.

You are wrong. The officers are STILL required to read the suspects their Miranda right warnings prior to any custodial interrogation. The RULING merely means that silence by the suspect is not the same as an invocation of the right to remain silent. If you want the right, you are obliged to actually invoke it.

Mere Silence Doesn?t Invoke Miranda, Justices Rule - NYTimes.com

Morons such as you rarely grasp what you pee your panties over. But the funny thing is, you are not just wrong, but now massively and publicly wrong.

Thanks for underscoring what an insignificant little mind you have!

 

[Bfgrn]

i'm sure innocent people confess to murder all the time

December 2007, Page 30

The Problem of False Confession in America
By Richard A. Leo

In 1998 two young boys in Chicago – ages seven and eight – were charged with murdering an eleven-year-old girl named Ryan Harris. She had been badly beaten around the head, her underpants had been stuffed into her mouth, and she appeared to have been sexually assaulted. After an unrecorded interrogation, the two boys “confessed” to hitting Harris in the head with a brick (and then stuffing leaves and grass in her nose) in order to steal her bicycle. Largely because of the boys’ ages, the case attracted national media attention. The country was horrified that two prepubescent boys were capable of committing so savage a crime. Although the evidence pointed to an adult sex crime, the police insisted that the two boys were not too young to have done it, and that they knew details that could only be known to the detectives or the perpetrators.

Months later, however, the Illinois State Crime Laboratory discovered semen on Ryan Harris’ underpants – evidence that the crime could not have been committed by suspects as young as seven and eight – and prosecutors dismissed the charges. The collected DNA was later shown to match the DNA of Floyd Durr, an adult already charged with sexually assaulting three other young girls in the same neighborhood. Durr subsequently admitted being present and committing a sex act over Harris’ body.1

The Ryan Harris case is not an isolated one. Nor are false confessions limited to children or teenagers. In recent years, police have elicited a substantial number of demonstrably false confessions from adults.2 Many of these false confessions have led to erroneous prosecutions, and some have led to wrongful convictions and incarceration.3 Some of the wrongfully convicted false confessors have spent many years unjustly incarcerated before being exonerated and released; others remain behind bars.4 A number of exonerated false confessors were convicted of capital crimes and sentenced to death.5 One false confessor, Earl Washington, spent almost ten of his more than seventeen years of imprisonment on Virginia’s death row and came within nine days of being executed before being exonerated in 2001.6 Researchers and activists believe that several other innocent confessors have been executed – Edward Earl Johnson in 1987,7 Barry Lee Fairchild in 1995,8 Leo Jones in 1998,9 and Dobie Gillis Williams in 1999.10

Throughout American history, police-induced false confessions have been among the leading causes of wrongful conviction.11 It is easy to understand how beatings, torture, sleep deprivation, and threats of violence may lead an innocent suspect to falsely confess. Yet with psychological interrogation methods, the idea that an innocent person would confess to a crime he did not commit – particularly to a felony that carries the possibility of a lengthy prison sentence or even the death penalty – is highly counter-intuitive.12
The Problem of False Confession in America

i'm sure that the national association of criminal defense attorneys is a completely unbiased source.

To a statist, any excuse will do. Wear it proudly, it matches your pea brain.

BTW del, did you go to school with anyone who became a cop? I did, they were the thugs that were always in trouble with the law...

Robins and Blue Jays don't nest together.

 

[goldcatt]

Haven't read everything yet, but I'm not getting the impression the decision guts Miranda. What it does do is place the right to remain silent on the same footing with the right to an attorney - both will now have to be explicitly requested, instead of just the attorney. The right still exists.

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Silence is a passive right to take no action - why should one have to take action to invoke it? The right to an attorney is an affirmative right, it makes more sense that one should have to request it. I disagree with the outcome for that reason, it seems counterintuitive for those trying to invoke their rights, but it's not the end of civilization as we know it either.

That is the part of the ruling I would have trouble with. I would think that just remaining silent would constitute exercising the right, and I hope later decisions clear that up. On the other hand, this guy did answer questions throughout the interrogation. I would think that if someone wants to remain silent, they actually have to do so. You shouldn't be able to talk, end up saying to much, and then claim you didn't waive the right to remain silent.

For this set of facts I agree with you 100%. Silence shoud be invoked by being silent.

 

[del]

December 2007, Page 30

The Problem of False Confession in America
By Richard A. Leo

In 1998 two young boys in Chicago – ages seven and eight – were charged with murdering an eleven-year-old girl named Ryan Harris. She had been badly beaten around the head, her underpants had been stuffed into her mouth, and she appeared to have been sexually assaulted. After an unrecorded interrogation, the two boys “confessed” to hitting Harris in the head with a brick (and then stuffing leaves and grass in her nose) in order to steal her bicycle. Largely because of the boys’ ages, the case attracted national media attention. The country was horrified that two prepubescent boys were capable of committing so savage a crime. Although the evidence pointed to an adult sex crime, the police insisted that the two boys were not too young to have done it, and that they knew details that could only be known to the detectives or the perpetrators.

Months later, however, the Illinois State Crime Laboratory discovered semen on Ryan Harris’ underpants – evidence that the crime could not have been committed by suspects as young as seven and eight – and prosecutors dismissed the charges. The collected DNA was later shown to match the DNA of Floyd Durr, an adult already charged with sexually assaulting three other young girls in the same neighborhood. Durr subsequently admitted being present and committing a sex act over Harris’ body.1

The Ryan Harris case is not an isolated one. Nor are false confessions limited to children or teenagers. In recent years, police have elicited a substantial number of demonstrably false confessions from adults.2 Many of these false confessions have led to erroneous prosecutions, and some have led to wrongful convictions and incarceration.3 Some of the wrongfully convicted false confessors have spent many years unjustly incarcerated before being exonerated and released; others remain behind bars.4 A number of exonerated false confessors were convicted of capital crimes and sentenced to death.5 One false confessor, Earl Washington, spent almost ten of his more than seventeen years of imprisonment on Virginia’s death row and came within nine days of being executed before being exonerated in 2001.6 Researchers and activists believe that several other innocent confessors have been executed – Edward Earl Johnson in 1987,7 Barry Lee Fairchild in 1995,8 Leo Jones in 1998,9 and Dobie Gillis Williams in 1999.10

Throughout American history, police-induced false confessions have been among the leading causes of wrongful conviction.11 It is easy to understand how beatings, torture, sleep deprivation, and threats of violence may lead an innocent suspect to falsely confess. Yet with psychological interrogation methods, the idea that an innocent person would confess to a crime he did not commit – particularly to a felony that carries the possibility of a lengthy prison sentence or even the death penalty – is highly counter-intuitive.12
The Problem of False Confession in America

i'm sure that the national association of criminal defense attorneys is a completely unbiased source.

To a statist, any excuse will do. Wear it proudly, it matches your pea brain.

BTW del, did you go to school with anyone who became a cop? I did, they were the thugs that were always in trouble with the law...

Robins and Blue Jays don't nest together.

i'm sorry you've got a small penis. seek therapy.

 

[George Costanza]

Do the American people need any MORE evidence right wing America is ANTI-freedom? What NEXT, guilty until proven innocent???

Court: Suspects must say they want to be silent

By JESSE J. HOLLAND (AP) – 1 hour ago

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that suspects must explicitly tell police they want to be silent to invoke Miranda protections during criminal interrogations, a decision one dissenting justice said turns defendants' rights "upside down."

A right to remain silent and a right to a lawyer are the first of the Miranda rights warnings, which police recite to suspects during arrests and interrogations. But the justices said in a 5-4 decision that suspects must tell police they are going to remain silent to stop an interrogation, just as they must tell police that they want a lawyer.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court's newest member, wrote a strongly worded dissent for the court's liberals, saying the majority's decision "turns Miranda upside down."

"Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent — which counter-intuitively, requires them to speak," she said. "At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so. Those results, in my view, find no basis in Miranda or our subsequent cases and are inconsistent with the fair-trial principles on which those precedents are grounded."

OK - it's bad, but not as bad as the thread title implies. Miranda has not been "stricken down." Police still have to give the Miranda warning to a suspect prior to any questioning without an attorney present. It's what happens after the advisement that has changed somewhat.

It used to be that, following advisement, silence by the defendant was deemed to be an invocation of the right, and questioning must cease. No longer. Now, silence by the defendant is NOT deemed a waiver, and the police may continue to question (i.e., hammer away at) the suspect.

It also used to be that an express waiver of the rights was required before police could talk to the suspect. That rule has been eroded over the years however, and courts have generally held that a defendant who has been advised and then voluntarily talks, has entered into an IMPLIED waiver and hence need not have given an EXPRESS waiver prior to talking. This present ruling seems to cement that one in stone.

It may surprise some of you, but I don't find this ruling all that offensive - at least with respect to the implied waiver theory. It chips away a little bit more at "classic Miranda," but that has been going on for decades. I have never had much trouble with the implied waiver theory. Seems to me if a suspect has been advised, understands the advisement and then talks, that is sufficient. Failure to give an express waiver seems superfluous in such a situation.

I am troubled by this "silence as a waiver" ruling, however. What the Court is doing here is resolving an issue that could go either way, AGAINST the suspect. Silence generally means the suspect is confused and/or conflicted about whether he should talk to the police. If that's the case, let's err on the side of Constitutionality and rule that this means questioning must cease. Apparently, our New Supremes don't feel that way.

Miranda is not dead - but he just got kicked in the nuts.