Clifton cop faces probe after brake-checking motorist (VIDEO)
A man identified as a Clifton resident posted the video of a cop brake-checking him to YouTube last week.
United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: N.J. troopers arrest woman for remaining silent during traffic stop
Source:
NJ.com
URL Source: https://www.yahoo.com/news/woman-ar ... affic-stop-sues-143925452.html
Published: May 5, 2016
Author: S.P. Sullivan
Post Date: 2016-05-06 11:08:50 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 15752
Comments: 71
TRENTON — Two New Jersey state troopers cuffed a woman along a Warren County roadway and hauled her in on an obstruction charge because she refused to answer questions during a routine traffic stop, according to dashboard camera footage obtained by NJ Advance Media. The Oct. 16 incident, which happened near the New Jersey-Pennsylvania border on Route 519, is now the subject of a federal civil rights lawsuit filed by the woman, Rebecca Musarra, an attorney from Philadelphia. Musarra claims in the suit the troopers violated basic rules familiar to anybody who's ever watched a police show on TV, including the right to remain silent. She claims at least three troopers insisted during the ordeal that her refusal to answer questions was a criminal act. Spokesmen for the State Police and the Attorney General's Office, which is representing the troopers in the lawsuit, declined to comment on the allegations. But, State Police spokesman Capt. Stephen Jones said in an e-mail, "in every instance where misconduct is alleged against a trooper or troopers, as is the case here, (the division's internal affairs office) will review the allegations and investigate the facts. "In the event that problems are identified, training and/or disciplinary measures are implemented where appropriate." Attorneys for the state have sought in federal filings to have the civil case dismissed, claiming the troopers "acted in good faith and without fraud or malice." They have not yet addressed the specific charges in court papers. NJ Advance Media obtained the footage, along with a dispatch log from that evening, through an Open Public Records Act request filed in April. The documents show Trooper Matthew Stazzone pulled Musarra over just before 9:30 p.m., suspecting her of speeding. He was quickly joined by a second trooper, Demetric Gosa, records show. The dashboard camera footage shows Stazzone approached the vehicle on the passenger side and asked Musarra for her license, registration and insurance. "While you're looking for that, do you know why you're being pulled over tonight?" the trooper asked her, according to the tape. She claims she provided the documents but didn't respond. After asking her several more times, Stazzone walked to the other side of her car, rapping on the window with his flashlight and again demanding a response. "You're going to be placed under arrest if you don't answer my questions," he told her. Musarra claims the force of the flashlight chipped her window. The footage shows she eventually told the trooper she was an attorney and that she did not have to answer questions. Stazzone then ordered her out of the vehicle. As the two troopers cuffed her and walked her toward a troop car, Musarra asked them, "Are you detaining me because I refused to speak?" "Yeah," Stazzone replied, according to the video. "Yeah, obstruction," Gosa added. The troopers placed her in the back of the car and Stazzone read Musarra her Miranda rights including "you have a right to remain silent" — before taking her to the nearby State Police barracks in Washington. State Police did not provide any video from inside the station in response to NJ Advance Media's records request. In her lawsuit, Musarra claims she was patted down twice and cuffed to a bench inside a holding cell. She also claims the troopers denied her request to call her parents, promising to call on her behalf but never doing so. She claims a supervisor, Trooper James Butler, later entered the cell to ask her what had happened. "I said, 'Well, the trooper arrested me for not answering his questions,'" Musarra told NJ Advance Media. "And the supervisor indicated (to me) that was obstruction." New Jersey's obstruction statute defines the criminal act as impeding law enforcement through "flight, intimidation, force, violence, or physical interference or obstacle, or by means of any independently unlawful act." Musarra said Butler then left to review the dashboard camera footage. After about 30 minutes, she claims, he returned and told her "a mistake was made, and to chalk it up to training, and that (Stazzone) was just a rookie." Both Stazzone and Gosa joined the division in 2014, public payroll records show. Reached by phone, Stazzone declined to comment. Gosa and Butler could not be reached. Musarra claims Butler then offered to get her car, which had been towed from the scene, out of impoundment for free as "a favor" and apologized for the incident. She was never formally charged with obstruction or issued a summons as a result of the stop, records show. The whole ordeal lasted about two hours. Musarra, a private attorney for a Delaware firm who sometimes represents immigrant children in legal matters pro bono, said she comes from "a law enforcement family." Her father is a former prosecutor in Warren County and her mother is a former probation officer, she said, and she understands "cops have a difficult job to do." But, she added, "there has to be some sort of accountability." "Who knows what will happen to the next person who comes down the road who decides they have these constitutional rights they want to assert?" Musarra said.
"What happens to them when they don't have the sort of privileges I have?"
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
You can remain silent but the right to remain silent kicks in after you're arrested.
She acted properly and FULLY within her rights. The Supreme Court has declared that she has the RIGHT to remain silent. That right is absolute, and it is not "obstruction of justice" or "obstruction of the police" to refuse to speak, unless one has been granted immunity from prosecution. She is an attorney. She knows her rights and privileges as a citizen. She asserted them. The cops broke the law, and will now be held accountable. She was completely right, in every respect. And they were completely wrong, in every respect. They should have known that. "You have the right to remain silent" means just exactly that. It is a Constitutional right, and the Constitution supersedes ALL state, local, departmental and other procedures. It supersedes the police "right to feel safe". It is absolute, and the police break the law when they seek to punish it. She should sue for the lost time and the harassment, and for violation of her rights. The cops need to be taught, through disciplinary proceedings and lawsuits, that those words they pronounce: "You have the RIGHT to remain silent" actually means to them, the cops, that THEIR authority is at an end, and that if they seek to coerce speaking, that they are now the criminals, and they will be punished and help personally accountable. It is imperative that the cops be brought to heel, and it will probably take the legal profession to do it, for police are officers of the law, but attorneys are all officers of the court, and it is the court that sits in judgment OVER the law. The police answer to lawyers, and lawyers answer to judges. That is our system. The police seem to be acting more and more as a law unto themselves. More powerful people in the system: Attorneys and Judges, need to force them back into line through the force of law. The cops need to be brought to heel.
Let's test this in court.
Good for her! If you are not willing to stand up for your rights,you might as well not have them. In her case,I am sure the only reason she was released without additional charges like "suspicion of DUI/DUD's is because she is a lawyer licensed to practice law in NJ,and a member of a big firm. The cops knew anything they tried would come back on them. If she had been a waitress,they would have charged her with something else and then offered to drop the charges if she would sign off on not being mistreated. BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO! ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION! Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
Wrong once again. You have them all the time. That's why they are called "RIGHTS" instead of "privileges". BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO! ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION! Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
Really? You do not have right to remain silent until you get arrested? What if you are mute? Or unable to speak out of fear?
All mutes in New Jersey are subject to arrest. "Or unable to speak out of fear?" If you're so fearful that you can't speak, you must have done something wrong. Therefore, you are subject to arrest.
Correction: You can remain silent but the right to remain silent is only protected after you're arrested.
The right exists. The duty to inform one of the right kicks in after the detention becomes custodial.
Correction: you've got it wrong. The duty to inform one of the right to remain silent kicks in when the detention becomes custodial.
True. But your right to remain silent is a protected right even if you're not informed.
That's completely wrong. And funny!
LOL!!! So everyone who's afraid is subject to arrest!! Good one! Surely you're being sarcastic! Not even you could be this stupid.
Wrong again. Any "rights" not protected are not rights. Okay? And the 5th Amendment says nothing about any requirement of arrest or detainment.
Not sure what you mean here - seems to me that many natural rights are not only not defended by government but are actively violated by government (e.g., the natural rights to grow, sell, buy, and use pot). A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Sure they are. They're unprotected rights. Otherwise, by protecting a right you're establishing that right. And our government doesn't establish rights.
The right to remain silent is protect from birth to death, except upon a grant of immunity. It is not the right to remain silent that is affected by providing, or failing to provide, Miranda warnings. The ability of the government to use anything said, as evidence against the speaker, is affected.
The government does not protect your right to grow pot. Because of that, the government may pass laws against the growing of pot. They did.
Miranda rights were created by the government.
Most states have laws that require you to identify yourself in certain situations. You can remain silent, but then you're going to jail until they can figure out who you are.
There are, in fact, actually different kinds of rights. Constitutionally protected rights: Rights protected by the Constitution, aka right to remain silent, freedom of speech, etc. Often these rights are spelled with a capital R. Statutory rights: These are rights not in the Constitution, but instead established by law. These rights can be created and removed by legislation. Natural rights: These are rights considered to be given by God, and not within the authority of any man to remove, at least unilaterally. The DoI mentions "Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" as rights endowed by our Creator. Some would say growing & using cannabis, or otherwise doing what we wish to our own bodies would fall into this category. Arguably these rights are highest of all as even Constitutionally protected rights can be removed via the Amendment process. Moral rights: The right to behave in a certain way in a context of moral justice. I.e. breaking into a neighbor's home to steal back something he stole from you, even if no other recourse is available. (Obviously this would almost always conflict any legal/statutory rights). In the context of this discussion, we're talking about the right to remain silent as a Constitutionally protected right.
She provided the required documents. She's not required to vocalize her identity or engage in conversation with a cop. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much I got pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt a few years back and when the female officer asked me that same question I replied : "I think that you are supposed to tell me why" She wasn't bothered at all by my answer and I later explained that I didn't want to incriminate myself if she was pulling me over for something else.
The woman in this case did ID herself. She handed her papers over to the police. They arrested her for not being conversational. If the facts are as mentioned above, she should win and the cops should get big time reprimanded.
The traffic stop is special in regard to that because everyone driving is required to have and be able to provide a valid drivers license and registration. From the story as written above its obvious he had no valid reason to arrest her. "Do you know why I pulled you over?" is a rhetorical question, not a serious one. I know its a standard question.
That's exactly why they ask that. They want the driver to incriminate themselves. It goes into their report and gets mentioned to the traffic judge as a confession of wrongdoing. Or at least it can be. I'm sure it's standard training for cops when they do routine traffic stops. Yes, the burden of proof is on the cop. Let them say why you were stopped, and don't affirm or deny anything they say you were doing. Even by denying it, you may inadvertently admit you were at the location where he thinks you did something wrong, and he may not even be sure he's got the right car. Unless you want to try to sweet talk your way into a warning, which, if you happen to be a hot blond bombshell, could have merit. But legally, there's no requirement to discuss anything.
The rights always existed, but most people were unaware of them. As a result of the court case by the same name, law enforcement is now required to tell you about these rights after your arrest and before they question you. You can then claim those rights or waive them.
That's way it turned out, yes. But her refusal to talk was suspicious. The cop thought so. So he played it safe and took her in. I don't understand the people who want to fuck with the cops. When they end up getting arrested, I'm sorry, they had it coming. No sympathy for them, even if they were in the right.
Seriously? What is "suspicious" about not wishing to have a conversation with a cop? I don't understand the people who want to fuck with the cops. Yet in this case, the woman was not "fucking with the cops". She did exactly what was legally required. No more - no less. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much Seriously? By the way, no one is talking about a "conversation" except you and your strawman buddy. She wouldn't say anything. That's odd. Especially when cooperation and being polite may get you out of a ticket.
Well, thank you for this refreshing blast of honesty.
The fact is, a cop's "hunch" is not and never has been recognized as legit probable cause to arrest people. Those cops who rely on the law for such decisions fair much better with community relations than do cops who consider themselves to be the law.
There's nothing "odd" about that. She identified herself - there is no requirement to talk to a cop. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much The Miranda Rule had no existence until the Supreme Court created it in Miranda v. Arizona. It is one example of the vast body of court made law. It operates as a sanction against government authorities rendering any information gained during an interrogation absent a warning in compliance with specific guidelines stated for the first time in the Miranda opinion, inadmissable against the accused. It created a rule of criminal procedure regarding admissibility which did not previously exist. Prior to the announcement of the rule in Miranda, no such rule existed. Under your interpretation, the right to Miranda warnings always existed, and could have been used to overturn every conviction wrongfully obtained through the use of statements obtained without a Miranda warning which nobody had ever heard of. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/384/436/ U.S. Supreme Court Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) At 445: At 478-79: At 481:
You didn't read the decision, SFB. "The standard warning long given by Special Agents of the FBI to both suspects and persons under arrest is that the person has a right to say nothing and a right to counsel, and that any statement he does make may be used against him in court. Examples of this warning are to be found in the Westover case at 342 F.2d 684 (1965), and Jackson v. U.S., 337 F.2d 136 (1964), cert. den., 380 U.S. 935."
She should have said, "Oink, oink" and be done with it.
That's exactly why pointed questions are asked "do you know why I stopped you"? For oral admissions. It's Vehicle & Traffic Stop 101 I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Put her in the patrol car with the heavy duty suspension.
Now there's one who can say "Oink, oink" and get away with it.
Fred's looking for his hand lotion.
Typical moronic response. She's overweight so she must be guilty of something, right? She was under no obligation to speak with the cop. She showed the pertinent information and clammed up. Which is what anyone should do. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much Fred blurted out "Oink, oink" as a matter of reflex. Don't be so hard on him.
massivemelons.com
"The standard warning long given by Special Agents of the FBI to both suspects and persons under arrest is that the person has a right to say nothing and a right to counsel, and that any statement he does make may be used against him in court. Examples of this warning are to be found in the Westover case at 342 F.2d 684 (1965), and Jackson v. U.S., 337 F.2d 136 (1964), cert. den., 380 U.S. 935." I did read the opinion, SFB. You are too stupid to understand what you read. Also, you did not read the preceding circuit court opinions which you cite. In both cases, the FBI gave a non-Miranda compliant warning in accordance with what was then FBI policy. The evidence was upheld as lawfully obtained and the court in Westover noted that "as the law now stands, there is no automatic rule of exclusion which will bar use of such a confession...." Miranda created an automatic rule of exclusion which had not previously existed. It created specific minimum mandatory guidelines for a mandatory warning, with compliance failure resulting in exclusion of the obtained evidence. That the FBI voluntarily issued some form of warning (not meeting the Miranda standard) does not require all (or any) of law enforcement to issue any warning, nor does it make the FBI abbreviated warning compliant with the Miranda standard. Miranda cites the FBI warning only to show that a form of warning already existed, and was being used, within one element of the law enforcement community. Jackson and Westover noted the then-standard FBI warnings voluntarily given by the FBI agents to comply with FBI policy, but did not make such warnings, much less Miranda warnings, compulsory upon anybody, and imposed no automatic sanction against the government if said warning was omitted. http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/337/136/227932/ Jackson v. U.S., 337 F.2d 136 (1964) Danaher, Circuit Judge [...] We conclude that no rule of law required the exclusion of this appellant's confession, voluntarily made, after he had been warned by the F.B.I., the police and the United States Commissioner acting pursuant to Rule 40(b). He had not requested that counsel be appointed; he had retained no lawyer; that one was not then appointed for him denied him no right; and as the law now stands, there is no automatic rule of exclusion which will bar use of such a confession by an accused who has no lawyer, under circumstances such as appear on the record before us. As noted in this pre-Miranda case, there was no applicable automatic rule of exclusion. Fahy, Circuit Judge, dissenting http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/342/684/248369/ Westover v U.S., 342 .F2d 684 (9th Cir. 1965) [...] The statements above discussed were offered and received in evidence at the appellant's trial. He now urges that they should have been excluded, sua sponte by the court, even though appellant's counsel at the trial did not object to their admission. He says that the doctrines of the cases of McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332, 63 S. Ct. 608, 87 L. Ed. 819; Upshaw v. United States, 335 U.S. 410, 69 S. Ct. 170, 93 L. Ed. 100; Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449, 77 S. Ct. 1356, 1 L. Ed. 2d 1479; and Ginoza v. United States, CA 9, 279 F.2d 616, and Rule 5(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure require the exclusion of the appellant's confessions. The precedents cited by the appellant have no direct application to the facts of this case, since the appellant had not been arrested by federal officers and was not in their custody at the time he made the statements, nor, as we shall see, until eleven days thereafter. The appellant, however, urges that, even if a prisoner is in state custody, the McNabb exclusionary rule may exclude a confession made to federal agents if there is between the state and federal agents a cooperative "working arrangement" of a kind which makes the federal agents responsible for illegal detention by the state agents. The court found no abuses in the admission into evidence of the confession.
OK I decided to watch the video. The officer admitted he was arresting her for refusing to answer question. She is under no obligation to answer his question. She probably should have just to make it easier on herself. If the officer pulled her over for traffic violation he just should have given her a ticket and left it at that. He just got angry because she didn't obey him and he wanted to show her who was in charge.
Then you're simply a liar, stumbling over yourself in full retreat.
I am sorry you are too stupid and ignorant to read and comprehend Miranda v. Arizona. Miranda is the precedent setting case, and Westover and Jackson are not, for the obvious reasons stated. Obvious to those who read and comprehend.
"The standard warning long given by Special Agents of the FBI to both suspects and persons under arrest is that the person has a right to say nothing and a right to counsel, and that any statement he does make may be used against him in court. Examples of this warning are to be found in the Westover case at 342 F.2d 684 (1965), and Jackson v. U.S., 337 F.2d 136 (1964), cert. den., 380 U.S. 935." SFB
I am sorry you are too stupid and ignorant to read and comprehend Miranda v. Arizona. Miranda is the precedent setting case, and Westover and Jackson are not, for the obvious reasons stated. Obvious to those who read and comprehend.
2. Miranda is the precedent setting case "The standard warning long given by Special Agents of the FBI to both suspects and persons under arrest is that the person has a right to say nothing and a right to counsel, and that any statement he does make may be used against him in court. Examples of this warning are to be found in the Westover case at 342 F.2d 684 (1965), and Jackson v. U.S., 337 F.2d 136 (1964), cert. den., 380 U.S. 935." Furtively trying to move the goalpost, SFB.
I am sorry you are too stupid and ignorant to read and comprehend Miranda v. Arizona. Miranda is the precedent setting case, and Westover and Jackson are not, for the obvious reasons stated. Obvious to those who read and comprehend.
And still furtively trying to move the goalpost, while fleeing your original falsehood. Time for more dishonest spam, SFB?
That was the penalty for not advising the suspect of his rights. As I said before, those rights already existed. Miranda simply required law enforcement to remind the suspect of those rights. Miranda did not create any rights.
As I said before, those rights already existed. The right to remain silent existed. The mandatory warning or advisory of rights (Miranda rights) did not exist, and the automatic exclusion of evidence absent such Miranda warning did not exist. Prior to Miranda, the right to a warning did not exist. Failure to provide a warning invoked no penalty. The FBI policy was voluntary, did not include all the advisories required by Miranda, and was a voluntary FBI policy not applicable outside the FBI. Quite obviously, I never said that Miranda created the right to remain silent.
As did the right to consult an attorney. As did the right to have an attorney present during questioning. As did the right to have an attorney appointed to you if you cannot afford one. As did the right to stop answering questions at any time until you talk to an attorney.
As surely as a dog returns to its sick, SFB returns to his lies. "The standard warning long given by Special Agents of the FBI to both suspects and persons under arrest is that the person has a right to say nothing and a right to counsel, and that any statement he does make may be used against him in court. Examples of this warning are to be found in the Westover case at 342 F.2d 684 (1965), and Jackson v. U.S., 337 F.2d 136 (1964), cert. den., 380 U.S. 935." -Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966) "The agents of the F.B.I., the United States Commissioner, and finally, the Metropolitan Police, had advised the appellant of his rights in language substantially as set forth in Rule 5 as incorporated into Rule 40(b) (2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure." -Jackson v. U.S., 337 F.2d 136 (1964)
Bullshit. Look at the FBI advisory. It says nothing of appointing an attorney if you cannot afford one. http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/337/136/227932/ Danaher, Circuit Judge [...] We conclude that no rule of law required the exclusion of this appellant's confession, voluntarily made, after he had been warned by the F.B.I., the police and the United States Commissioner acting pursuant to Rule 40(b). He had not requested that counsel be appointed; he had retained no lawyer; that one was not then appointed for him denied him no right; and as the law now stands, there is no automatic rule of exclusion which will bar use of such a confession by an accused who has no lawyer, under circumstances such as appear on the record before us. [...] Appellant argues that the police officers may not testify to a voluntary confession given by one in lawful custody without an attorney, although the accused had been advised of his rights. The agents of the F.B.I., the United States Commissioner, and finally, the Metropolitan Police, had advised the appellant of his rights in language substantially as set forth in Rule 5 as incorporated into Rule 40(b) (2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. This court has expressly held that the Sixth Amendment does not require that counsel be appointed at the preliminary hearing.2 2 Council v. Clemmer, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 74, 177 F.2d 22, cert. denied, 338 U.S. 880, 70 S. Ct. 150, 94 L. Ed. 540 (1949); and such is the general rule, Price v. Johnston, 144 F.2d 260 (9 Cir.), cert. denied, 323 U.S. 789, 65 S. Ct. 312, 89 L. Ed. 629 (1944), rehearing denied, 323 U.S. 819, 65 S. Ct. 558, 89 L. Ed. 650 (1945) http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/4352 The New Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure: I George H. Dession Yale Law School At 702: __________ 25. McNabb v. U. S., 318 U. S. 332 (1943). The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Lester B. Orfield California Law Review At 546-47: The time within which a prisoner must be brought before a committing magistrate is defined differently in different statutes. The rule supersedes all statutory provisions and fixes a single standard, namely, "without unnecessary delay." What constitutes "unnecessary delay" will have to be determined in the light of all the facts and circumstances of the case. The commissioner is to inform the defendant of the complaint against him, of his right to retain counsel, of his right to a preliminary examination, and that he is not required to make a statement and that any statement made by him may be used against him.16 He shall allow the defendant reasonable time and opportunity to consult counsel and shall admit the defendant to bail as provided in those rules. __________ 15. Rule 5(a). The First Preliminary Draft had provided an effective sanction in its Rule 5(b): "No statement made by a defendant in response to interrogation by an officer or agent of the government shall be admissible in evidence against him if the interrogation occurs while the defendant is held in custody in violation of this rule". Much criticism from the bench and the bar resulted in the deletion of this rule in all subsequent drafts. But see A STATEMENT BY THE COMMITTEE ON THE BILL OF RIGHTS OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION ON H.R. 3690 (1944). 16 Rule 5 (b). http://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2761&context=lalrev Arraignment In Federal Criminal Procedure Lester B. Orfield Louisiana Law Review At 20-22 In 1938 the Supreme Court took the position that failure to comply with the provision in the Sixth Amendment guaranteeing the right to counsel meant that the district court lost jurisdiction over the case.74 Following this decision, a court of appeals with one judge disagreeing was willing to concede arguendo that an arraignment was void when a defendant pleading not guilty was unable to obtain counsel and had not intelligently waived his right to counsel.75 But the court could proceed after the defendant obtained counsel, withdrew his plea of not guilty, and entered a plea of guilty. Habeas corpus would not lie. But Circuit Judge Sibley was not willing to concede even for the sake of argument "that a court cannot arraign one not represented by counsel without an express waiver of counsel." Defendant had a right to counsel at arraignment only if he provided himself counsel,76 and at common law he did not even have the right to retain counsel. Another court of appeals held a short time later that when a defendant is arraigned and forced to plead to an indictment __________ 72. Garland v. State of Washington, 232 U.S. 642 (1914). Rearraignment was required in a homicide case after reversal on appeal and a second prosecution in Corbett v. State, 91 So.2d 509 (Ala. 1959), noted 31 TUL. L. Rev. 682 (1957). 73. Muncy v. United States, 289 Fed. 780, 781 (4th Cir. 1923). 74. Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938). 75. Saylor v. Sanford, 99 F.2d 605, 606 (5th Cir. 1938), cert. denied, 306 U.S. 630 (1939). 76. Until 1938 the right to counsel was generally understood as meaning merely the right of the defendant to be represented by counsel retained by him. Holtzoff, The Right of Counsel Under the Sizth Amendment, 20 N.Y.U.L.Q. Rev. 1, 7 (1944). - - - - - - - - - without counsel, there is no denial of due process and no right to habeas corpus where the defendant pleaded not guilty and was thereafter represented by an attorney on the trial."77 The defendant is not prejudiced when he pleads not guilty. Even where without counsel the defendant pleads guilty and the court appoints counsel immediately after arraignment, and the defendant elected with advice of counsel to stand on his plea of guilty, which was subject to change, the constitutional rights of the defendant were not violated and he was not prejudiced.78 Habeas corpus would not lie. The Supreme Court laid down a similar rule in a state court case.79 As Professor Fellman points out: "It has been held that an accused is entitled to the assistance of a lawyer upon arraignment whether he pleads guilty or not, but the weight of opinion seems to be otherwise."80 But one case has said that the right to counsel accrues as soon as the grand jury returns an indictment into court.81 And a leading case has said that there is a right even at the preliminary examination.82 At his arraignment the district court should advise the defendant of his right to counsel and of his right, if indigent, to have counsel appointed for him.83 This is true even though the defendant pleads guilty.84 "The constitutional guarantee makes no distinction between the arraignment and other stages of crim- __________ 77. DeMaurez v. Swope, 104 F.2d 758, 759 (9th Cir. 1939). See in accord Thompson v. King, 107 F.2d 307, 308 (8th Cir. 1939) ; Dorsey v. Gill, 148 F.2d 857, 875 (D.C. Cir. 1945), cert. denied, 325 U.S. 890 (1945) ; Wilfong v. Johnston, 156 F.2d 507, 508 (9th Cir. 1946). 78. MeJordan v. Huff, 133 F.2d 408, 409 (D.C. Cir. 1943), Justice Edgerton dissenting; Alexander v. United States, 136 F.2d 783, 784 (D.C. Cir. 1943).79. Can'izio v. New York, 327 U.S. 82, 85 (1946). Justices Murphy and Rutledge dissented. This case was followed as to a federal criminal defendant in Hiatt v. Gann, 170 F.2d 473 (5th Cir. 1948). 80. Fellman, The Constitutional Right to Counsel in Federal Courts, 30 NEB. L. Rev. 599, 588 (1951). 81. Gilmore v. United States, 129 F.2d 199, 203 (10th Cir. 1942), cert. denied, 317 U.S. 631 (1942). 82. Wood v. United States, 128 F.2d 265, 271, 141 A.L.R. 1318 (D.C. Cir. 1942). But the great weight of authority is contrary. Orfield, Proceedings Before the Commissioner in Federal Criminal Procedure, 19 U. PITT. L. REV. 489, 527-528 (1958). "A federal right to assigned counsel does not exist prior to arraignment in the trial court." MORELAND, MODERN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 177 (1959). 83. Evans v. Rives, 126 F.2d 633, 641 (D.C. Cir. 1942) ; McJordan v. Huff, 133 F.2d 408, 409 (D.C. Cir. 1943); Michener v. Johnston, 141 F.2d 171, 174 (9th Cir. 1944); Holtzoff, The Right of Counsel Under the Sixth Amendment, 20 N.Y.U.L.Q. REv. 1, 10, 14 (1944). This practice was followed in United States v. Gibert, 25 Fed. Cas. 1287, 1303, Case No. 15,204 (C.C.D. Mass. 1834). 84. Evans v. Rives, 126 F.2d 633, 637 (D.C. Cir. 1942) ; Holtzoff, The Right of Counsel Under the Sixth Amendment, 20 N.Y.U.L.Q. REv. 1, 11-13 (1944). - - - - - - - - - - inal proceedings in respect of the application of the guarantee."85 The "right to the assistance of counsel exists at the time of arraignment as well as at the trial."86 On the whole the federal cases have been in conflict as to whether the defendant has been deprived of his constitutional rights if he was unadvised at the time of arraignment."87 One court has pointed out that the time from arraignment up to trial is "the most critical period of the proceedings" as "investigation and preparation" are vitally important and the defendant should have counsel during that period.88 Delay Between Arraignment and Trial What about delay between arraignment and trial? In a case coming up from the Philippine Islands, Justice Lamar in a dissenting opinion objected to a trial commencing eleven months after arraignment.89 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning The Miranda warning is part of a preventive criminal procedure rule that law enforcement are required to administer to protect an individual who is in custody and subject to direct questioning or its functional equivalent from a violation of his or her Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination. In Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the Supreme Court held that the admission of an elicited incriminating statement by a suspect not informed of these rights violates the Fifth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, through the incorporation of these rights into state law.[Note 1] Thus, if law enforcement officials decline to offer a Miranda warning to an individual in their custody, they may interrogate that person and act upon the knowledge gained, but may not use that person's statements as evidence against him or her in a criminal trial. It is not the interrogation that was held to be a violation of rights, but the admission into evidence of the information gained thereby to be used against the subject of the interrogation in a criminal proceeding. The information may be used against others.
"The agents of the F.B.I., the United States Commissioner, and finally, the Metropolitan Police, had advised the appellant of his rights in language substantially as set forth in Rule 5 as incorporated into Rule 40(b) (2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure." -Jackson v. U.S., 337 F.2d 136 (1964) I am sorry you are too stupid and ignorant to read and comprehend Miranda v. Arizona. Miranda is the precedent setting case, and Westover and Jackson are not, for the obvious reasons stated. Obvious to those who read and comprehend.
1964 is before 1966, SFB.
I am sorry you are too stupid and ignorant to read and comprehend Miranda v. Arizona. Miranda is the precedent setting case, and Westover and Jackson are not, for the obvious reasons stated. Obvious to those who read and comprehend. 1964 is before 1966 and nobody gives a shit, especially a court. You are too stupid to comprehend what you are reading.
Where nolu chan (aka SFB) = nobody. Were you weeping as you once again tried to move the goalposts?
So if I'm arrested by the FBI I have no right to an attorney if I cannot afford one?
[nolu chan #57] [misterwhite #62] So if I'm arrested by the FBI I have no right to an attorney if I cannot afford one? Deliberately removing the context that it refers to the FBI advisory which predated Miranda does not help your cause. Further, as an FBI policy, the policy applied to nobody but FBI agents. When interrogated by anyone but an FBI agent, it had no applicability. While agencies are not required to make rules which exceed the minimum required by law, if they do adopt such a policy, as the FBI did, then that agency is required to comply with their own policy as long as it exists. It becomes part of due process. The voluntary FBI advisory said nothing of any then non-existent right to have an attorney appointed to you at no cost. It advised one had a right to consult with counsel. Look at note 76 to Arraignment In Federal Criminal Procedure, Lester B. Orfield, Louisiana Law Review, Volume 20 | Number 1, December 1959, quoted supra: The context for the above was for an arraignment in court. For an interrogation, there was no "right" to an attorney. https://leb.fbi.gov/2011/february/the-public-safety-exception-to-miranda The strength of the Miranda decision is its clarity in its nearly unwavering protection of a suspect’s Fifth Amendment protection against self incrimination. The commitment to this rule is so strong that the Supreme Court has recognized only one exception to the Miranda rule—the “public safety” exception—which permits law enforcement to engage in a limited and focused unwarned interrogation and allows the government to introduce the statement as direct evidence. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/the-public-safety-exception-miranda.html In the seminal case of New York v. Quarles, the Supreme Court said that an officer’s concern for public safety can justify a failure to give Miranda warnings. (467 U.S. 649 (1984).) In that case, a woman told police a man with a gun had just raped her. She also said the man entered a nearby store. An officer spotted a man in the store matching the description the victim gave and ran after him. The officer caught him, noticed he was wearing an empty gun holster, and handcuffed him. Moments later, other officers arrived. The officer then asked the man where the gun was. The man nodded in a certain direction and said, “The gun is over there.” The officer then retrieved it. Miranda applied to this situation—the officer interrogated the man while he was in handcuffs and surrounded by four officers. (See Miranda: The Meaning of Custodial Interrogation.) But no one read the man his rights until after his statement. So, when the defendant faced charges for illegal weapon possession, lower courts decided that the gun, and the man’s statements about it, were inadmissible. But the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, creating a public safety exception to the Miranda rule. The Court decided that Miranda doesn’t apply to a situation where officers ask questions legitimately designed to protect their safety or that of the public. So, your Miranda "rights" go out the window when a valid public safety argument is advanced. This is not all that difficult to understand when one understands what Miranda does, and does not, do. Miranda announces a court-made rule of criminal procedure. It holds that the specified advisory/warning must be given or any attempt to enter the obtained statement as evidence will be considered a violation of rights and disallowed. Under the public safety exception, the statement may be allowed into evidence to be used against the person questioned. Supposing you were part of a criminal conspiracy, and gave a statement without being Mirandized, and the statement was inculpatory with reference to your conspirators, the Miranda rule extends to you but not to your fellow conspirators. The Miranda rule excludes the statement from use against you, only. The Miranda rule speaks to whether the obtained statement may be admitted into evidence or not. It is a court-made rule of criminal procedure.
No, I was laughing at your public display of ignorance and stupidity. You cannot read and understand legal writings, and you display a public unwillingness to learn. Your assertion is irrelevant and felony stupid.
Sure you were, SFB.
You're talking to someone who can't tell the difference between a statute, a court decision, and an administrative rule.
You are a blithering idiot who can't tell the difference between a statute, a court opinion, an administrative rule, and an FBI rule restraining FBI agents.
I said nothing about whether or not the FBI had a duty to inform me of my rights. I simply asked if I had the right to an attorney if I can't afford one. I say I've always had that right.
Mark Twain had you pegged.
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963). Another decision prior to Miranda.
"including the right to remain silent ..."
#2. To: Deckard (#0)
#3. To: misterwhite (#1)
You can remain silent but the right to remain silent kicks in after you're arrested.
#4. To: Deckard, *Crime and Corruption* (#0)
#5. To: misterwhite (#1)
You can remain silent but the right to remain silent kicks in after you're arrested.
#6. To: misterwhite (#1)
You can remain silent but the right to remain silent kicks in after you're arrested.
#7. To: A Pole (#6)
"What if you are mute?"
#8. To: All (#1)
You can remain silent but the right to remain silent kicks in after you're arrested.
#9. To: misterwhite, Deckard (#1)
You can remain silent but the right to remain silent kicks in after you're arrested.
#10. To: misterwhite (#8)
Correction: You can remain silent but the right to remain silent is only protected after you're arrested.
#11. To: nolu chan (#10)
"The duty to inform one of the right to remain silent kicks in when the detention becomes custodial."
#12. To: misterwhite (#1)
You can remain silent but the right to remain silent kicks in after you're arrested.
#13. To: misterwhite (#7)
If you're so fearful that you can't speak, you must have done something wrong. Therefore, you are subject to arrest.
#14. To: misterwhite (#8)
Correction: You can remain silent but the right to remain silent is only protected after you're arrested.
#15. To: Pinguinite (#14)
Any "rights" not protected are not rights.
#16. To: Pinguinite (#14)
"Any "rights" not protected are not rights. Okay? "
#17. To: misterwhite (#11)
But your right to remain silent is a protected right even if you're not informed.
#18. To: ConservingFreedom (#15)
"seems to me that many natural rights are not only not defended by government but are actively violated by government (e.g., the natural rights to grow, sell, buy, and use pot)."
#19. To: misterwhite, Pinguinite (#16)
And our government doesn't establish rights.
#20. To: nolu chan (#17)
"The right to remain silent is protect from birth to death, except upon a grant of immunity."
#21. To: ConservingFreedom (#15)
Not sure what you mean here - seems to me that many natural rights are not only not defended by government but are actively violated by government (e.g., the natural rights to grow, sell, buy, and use pot).
#22. To: misterwhite (#20)
Most states have laws that require you to identify yourself in certain situations.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#23. To: Deckard (#0)
"While you're looking for that, do you know why you're being pulled over tonight?" the trooper asked her, according to the tape. She claims she provided the documents but didn't respond.
#24. To: misterwhite (#20)
Most states have laws that require you to identify yourself in certain situations. You can remain silent, but then you're going to jail until they can figure out who you are.
#25. To: misterwhite, nolu chan (#20)
Most states have laws that require you to identify yourself in certain situations. You can remain silent, but then you're going to jail until they can figure out who you are
#26. To: TrappedInMd (#23)
She wasn't bothered at all by my answer and I later explained that I didn't want to incriminate myself if she was pulling me over for something else.
#27. To: nolu chan (#19)
"Miranda rights were created by the government."
#28. To: TrappedInMd (#25)
"From the story as written above its obvious he had no valid reason to arrest her."
#29. To: misterwhite (#28)
But her refusal to talk was suspicious. The cop thought so.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#30. To: Deckard (#29)
"What is "suspicious" about not wishing to have a conversation with a cop?"
#31. To: misterwhite (#28)
When they end up getting arrested, I'm sorry, they had it coming. No sympathy for them, even if they were in the right.
#32. To: misterwhite (#30)
She wouldn't say anything. That's odd. Especially when cooperation and being polite may get you out of a ticket.
#33. To: misterwhite (#30)
She wouldn't say anything. That's odd.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#34. To: misterwhite (#27)
The rights always existed, but most people were unaware of them.
The constitutional issue we decide in each of these cases is the admissibility of statements obtained from a defendant questioned while in custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. In each, the defendant was questioned by police officers, detectives, or a prosecuting attorney in a room in which he was cut off from the outside world. In none of these cases was the defendant given a full and effective warning of his rights at the outset of the interrogation process. In all the cases, the questioning elicited oral admissions, and in three of them, signed statements as well which were admitted at their trials. They all thus share salient features -- incommunicado interrogation of individuals in a police-dominated atmosphere, resulting in self-incriminating statements without full warnings of constitutional rights.
To summarize, we hold that, when an individual is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom by the authorities in any significant way and is subjected to questioning, the privilege against self-incrimination is jeopardized. Procedural safeguards must be employed to protect the privilege, and unless other fully effective means are adopted to notify the person of his right of silence and to assure that the exercise of the right will be scrupulously honored, the following measures are required. He must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that, if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires. Opportunity to exercise these rights must be afforded to him throughout the interrogation. After such warnings have been given, and such opportunity afforded him, the individual may knowingly and intelligently waive these rights and agree to answer questions or make a statement. But unless and until such warnings and waiver are demonstrated by the prosecution at trial, no evidence obtained as a result of interrogation can be used against him.
In announcing these principles, we are not unmindful of the burdens which law enforcement officials must bear, often under trying circumstances. We also fully recognize the obligation of all citizens to aid in enforcing the criminal laws. This Court, while protecting individual rights, has always given ample latitude to law enforcement agencies in the legitimate exercise of their duties. The limits we have placed on the interrogation process should not constitute an undue interference with a proper system of law enforcement. As we have noted, our decision does not in any way preclude police from carrying out their traditional investigatory functions. Although confessions may play an important role in some convictions, the cases before us present graphic examples of the overstatement of the "need" for confessions. In each case, authorities conducted interrogations ranging up to five days in duration despite the presence, through standard investigating practices, of considerable evidence against each defendant.
#35. To: nolu chan (#34)
The Miranda Rule had no existence until the Supreme Court created it in Miranda v. Arizona.
#36. To: misterwhite (#28)
But her refusal to talk was suspicious.
#37. To: TrappedInMd (#23)
She wasn't bothered at all by my answer and I later explained that I didn't want to incriminate myself if she was pulling me over for something else.
#38. To: Fred Mertz (#36)
She should have said, "Oink, oink" and be done with it.
#39. To: Roscoe (#38)
#40. To: misterwhite (#39)
Now there's one who can say "Oink, oink" and get away with it.
#41. To: Roscoe (#38)
Put her in the patrol car with the heavy duty suspension.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#42. To: Deckard (#41)
Typical moronic response.
#43. To: Roscoe (#40)
#44. To: Roscoe (#35)
You didn't read the decision, SFB.
On September 8, 1961, the United States Commissioner issued a warrant for the arrest of the appellant on a felony-murder charge. On September 15, 1961, at 3:20 A.M., an agent of the F.B.I. arrested the appellant at Staten Island, New York. The F.B.I. agent immediately advised the appellant "that he did not have to make any statement, that any statement he did make would be used against him in a court of law, and that he was entitled to an attorney."
Upon their arrival at the Detention Headquarters they asked if they could speak to appellant, and were taken to a small room off the prisoners' corridor. A few minutes later appellant was brought to this room. We have no record of what occurred, but the officers testified that they identified themselves, told appellant they were investigating the death of Tony Philip Lee with which he was charged, and that he did not have to talk to them if he did not wish to do so. According to their further testimony appellant "sat there for a few moments and then he said he would like to tell us about it," and made his detailed confession.
At about 11:30 a. m. on March 21, the F.B.I. agents were told that the appellant was available, in a room in the city jail. He had been interrogated, during the forenoon, by the police with regard to the local robberies. Three F.B.I. agents conducted the F.B.I. interview. No Kansas City policeman was present at the interview. The F.B.I. agents advised the appellant that he did not have to make a statement; that any statement that he made could be used against him in a court of law; that he had the right to consult an attorney. The agents made no threats or promises to the appellant. The appellant made detailed statements as to how he had committed the two Sacramento robberies for which he was later indicted and tried. His statements were written down in long-hand by one of the agents, as they were made, a separate statement being made for each of the robberies for convenience of filing.
#45. To: Deckard (#0)
#46. To: nolu chan (#44)
I did read the opinion
The standard warning long given by Special Agents of the FBI to both suspects and persons under arrest is that the person has a right to say nothing and a right to counsel, and that any statement he does make may be used against him in court. Examples of this warning are to be found in the Westover case at 342 F.2d 684 (1965), and Jackson v. U.S., 337 F.2d 136 (1964), cert. den., 380 U.S. 935.
SFB
#47. To: Roscoe (#46)
Then you're simply a liar, stumbling over yourself in full retreat.
#48. To: nolu chan (#47)
The Miranda Rule had no existence until the Supreme Court created it in Miranda v. Arizona.
#49. To: Roscoe (#48)
"The standard warning long given by Special Agents of the FBI to both suspects and persons under arrest is that the person has a right to say nothing and a right to counsel, and that any statement he does make may be used against him in court. Examples of this warning are to be found in the Westover case at 342 F.2d 684 (1965), and Jackson v. U.S., 337 F.2d 136 (1964), cert. den., 380 U.S. 935."
#50. To: nolu chan (#49)
1. The Miranda Rule had no existence until the Supreme Court created it in Miranda v. Arizona.
#51. To: Roscoe (#50)
"The standard warning long given by Special Agents of the FBI to both suspects and persons under arrest is that the person has a right to say nothing and a right to counsel, and that any statement he does make may be used against him in court. Examples of this warning are to be found in the Westover case at 342 F.2d 684 (1965), and Jackson v. U.S., 337 F.2d 136 (1964), cert. den., 380 U.S. 935."
#52. To: nolu chan (#51)
#53. To: nolu chan (#34)
"It created a rule of criminal procedure regarding admissibility which did not previously exist."
#54. To: misterwhite (#53)
That was the penalty for not advising the suspect of his rights.
#55. To: nolu chan (#54)
"The right to remain silent existed."
#56. To: nolu chan (#54)
The mandatory warning or advisory of rights (Miranda rights) did not exist
#57. To: misterwhite (#55)
As did the right to consult an attorney. As did the right to have an attorney present during questioning. As did the right to have an attorney appointed to you if you cannot afford one.
Jackson v. U.S., 337 F.2d 136 (1964)
On September 8, 1961, the United States Commissioner issued a warrant for the arrest of the appellant on a felony-murder charge. On September 15, 1961, at 3:20 A.M., an agent of the F.B.I. arrested the appellant at Staten Island, New York. The F.B.I. agent immediately advised the appellant "that he did not have to make any statement, that any statement he did make would be used against him in a court of law, and that he was entitled to an attorney."
Yale Law School
1-1-1946
Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository
Faculty Scholarship Series Yale Law School Faculty Scholarship Quite recently, for example, the Supreme Court has had before it such unresolved basic questions as that of the limits on the detention and interrogation of arrested persons prior to arraignment,25 of the meaning and scope of the right to counsel,26 and of the power of courts to correct various types of errors after the time within which a motion for new trial may be made has elapsed.27
26. Adams v. U. S. ex. rel. McCann, 317 U. S. 269 (1943).
27. Wells v. U. S., 318 U. S. 257 (1943).
Volume 33 | Issue 4 Article 4
December 1945 Proceedings before the Commissioner. Rule 5 deals with procedure immediately following apprehension of the defendant. A person arresting, whether with or without warrant, "shall take the arrested person without unnecessary delay before the nearest available commissioner or before any other nearby officer empowered to commit persons charged with offenses against the laws of the United States."15
Volume 20 | Number 1
December 1959 Right to Counsel
The Miranda warning, which can also be referred to as the Miranda rights, is a right to silence warning given by police in the United States to criminal suspects in police custody (or in a custodial interrogation) before they are interrogated to preserve the admissibility of their statements against them in criminal proceedings.
#58. To: Roscoe (#56)
"The standard warning long given by Special Agents of the FBI to both suspects and persons under arrest is that the person has a right to say nothing and a right to counsel, and that any statement he does make may be used against him in court. Examples of this warning are to be found in the Westover case at 342 F.2d 684 (1965), and Jackson v. U.S., 337 F.2d 136 (1964), cert. den., 380 U.S. 935." -Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966)
#59. To: nolu chan (#58)
#60. To: Roscoe (#59)
1964 is before 1966
#61. To: nolu chan (#60)
1964 is before 1966 and nobody gives a shit,
#62. To: nolu chan (#57)
"It says nothing of appointing an attorney if you cannot afford one."
#63. To: misterwhite (#62)
Look at the FBI advisory. [<—] It says nothing of appointing an attorney if you cannot afford one.
It says nothing of appointing an attorney if you cannot afford one."
76. Until 1938 the right to counsel was generally understood as meaning merely the right of the defendant to be represented by counsel retained by him. Holtzoff, The Right of Counsel Under the Sixth Amendment, 20 N.Y.U.L.Q. Rev. 1, 7 (1944).
After 44 years, the Miranda decision stands as a monolith in police procedure.1 Its requirements are so well known that the Supreme Court remarked, “Miranda has become embedded in routine police practice to the point where the warnings have become part of our national culture.”2 And, although the Supreme Court has clarified and refined Miranda over the years, its central requirements are clear.3 Whenever the prosecution seeks in its direct case to introduce a statement made by a suspect while in custody and in response to interrogation, it must prove that the subject was warned of specific rights and voluntarily waived those rights.4 The penalty imposed on the prosecution for failing to prove that the Miranda procedures were properly followed is harsh. While some secondary and limited uses of statements obtained in violation of Miranda are permitted, such statements are presumed to be coerced and cannot be introduced by the prosecution in its direct case.5
Public Safety Wins Out
#64. To: Roscoe (#61)
Were you weeping as you once again tried to move the goalposts?
#65. To: nolu chan (#64)
No, I was laughing
#66. To: misterwhite (#62)
So if I'm arrested by the FBI I have no right to an attorney if I cannot afford one?
#67. To: Roscoe, misterwhite (#66)
You're talking to someone who can't tell the difference between a statute, a court decision, and an administrative rule.
#68. To: Roscoe (#65)
#69. To: nolu chan (#63)
#70. To: nolu chan (#68)
#71. To: misterwhite (#69)
I simply asked if I had the right to an attorney if I can't afford one. I say I've always had that right.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]