- Joined
- Apr 3, 2009
- Messages
- 642
- Reaction score
- 414
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
He wasn't tricked. He was asked if he prayed about killing the boy and he said yes. That isn't a trick.
You don't think that them continuing to question him after he refused to answer any questions counted as him trying to invoke his right of privacy? That's how I see it. he tried to invoke his right to privacy and the police wouldn't let him.
Miranda has nothing to do with the right to privacy. It is a way of making sure a suspect is aware of his (or her) 5th and 6th Amendment rights when taken into custody. The specific right at issue here is the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination, aka the right to "remain silent".
You don't think that them continuing to question him after he refused to answer any questions counted as him trying to invoke his right of privacy? That's how I see it. he tried to invoke his right to privacy and the police wouldn't let him.
All he had to say was four basic words. I want a lawyer. He didn't and he was told anything you say can be used against you. Sucks for him but he has no one to blame really but himself.
I mean I guess I could see it that way, but if he really didn't want to say anything ask for a lawyer.
I mean I guess I could see it that way, but if he really didn't want to say anything ask for a lawyer.
Good ruling. Once a person in police custody is read their rights, it's up to them whether or not they choose to invoke them. This person chose not to.
Well sure, that's one way to look at it. But both rights are equally valid. Why should he have to lawyer up, when he can just be silent?
But if they keep on trying to get him to talk if he asked for a lawyer it would stop. So he really can't blame the cops for them continuing to ask him questions when if he would have asked for a lawyer the questioning would have stopped.
If he invokes his right to silence, the questioning is also supposed to stop. The problem for law enforcement is, how do you know for sure the guy invoked his right to silence? There is no sign to tell them emphatically to stop questioning. In that way having to ask is a good thing. It puts everybody on the same page.
On the other hand, when a suspect is read the Miranda rights it merely says he has the "right to remain silent". Logically, there is no way a suspect who doesn't seek out and read Supreme Court rulings is going to equate the right to remain silent with having to speak up and ask for silence. In that way, it's not a good thing.
Easily solved IMO, simply change the Miranda warnings so they more or less match the new rule. Then law enforcement gets their bright(er) line and suspects still get a clear picture of their rights and how to invoke them.
They interrogated him for 2 hours straight until he said something.
He should have asked for his lawyer. At that point, the questioning would have had to stop.
He should have asked for his lawyer. At that point, the questioning would have had to stop.
Is that written somewhere? Never really thought about it before. After a suspect has been read his Miranda rights he certainly isn't required to respond to a question. But is there some legal dictate that the cops have to stop talking to him? Be curious to see how that is stated in the law.....
.
In an earlier decision, Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S. Ct. 1880, 68 L. Ed. 2d 378 (1981), the Court had held that such a waiver must be "knowing and intelligent." Furthermore, the Court had made clear in Edwards that police officers must immediately stop questioning a suspect who clearly asserts the right to have legal counsel present during the interrogation.
From what I gather it came from this ruling:
Here is the link if you want to read the entire article. Custodial Interrogation - The Future Of Miranda, Further Readings
Just scanning through Wiki (whatever that's worth) it appears that different states have notably different "flavors" of Miranda warnings. And how they are applied....
.
He should have asked for his lawyer. At that point, the questioning would have had to stop.
I don't know how I feel about that then. I mean I support state rights, but it seems like something like Miranda Rights should be set on a federal level. But that is still interesting. I am going to look and see if I can find any law articles about that because it has peaked my interest.
Here is an interesting paragraph from the link that you provided (near the bottom)
"Edwards applied only when a suspect clearly asserted the right to have counsel present; it did not provide guidance to officers when a suspect made an ambiguous or equivocal request for counsel. Addressing that situation, some jurisdictions had held that any mention of counsel, no matter how ambiguous, required that questioning cease. Other courts had attempted to define a threshold standard of clarity, under which comments that fell below the required clarity did not invoke the RIGHT TO COUNSEL. Still other jurisdictions had ruled that questioning must cease upon any mention of counsel, but officers were permitted to ask further, narrow questions to clarify whether the suspect desired an attorney. In Davis, the U.S. Supreme Court settled the issue, holding that officers are not required to cease questioning if a suspect makes an ambiguous request for counsel. Questioning may continue until the suspect makes an "unambiguous" request for an attorney. Furthermore, the Court held, police officers have no duty to seek clarification of an ambiguous request."
How's that for being all over the board....!!!
.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?