so if i say, "i am exercising my right to remain silent," but then get a case of diarrhea of the mouth and confess, is the confession then allowable in court?
Some civil servants are just like my loved ones.
Montag: Depends. If you exercise your right to remain silent, then you say - unprovoked from cops - something that amounts to a confession, that's a "spontaneous utterances." If you exercise your right to remain silent, and police keep questioning you and, in response, you say something that amounts to a confession, that's a violation of Miranda, for now.
perhaps the Larry approach is in order, (from TBL.) literally, Joe Biden, remain silent.
I think this video is informative for our purposes.
Is the argument here that you can be read your Miranda rights, sit there for three hours, periodically giving one-word answers to police questions, confess at the end, and then claim that you invoked your rights?Not quite sure what the argument is.
Once you say something you've discarded you Miranda rights. And it's not a simple confession that often gets people--anything vague, contradictory of circumstantially implicating (such as admitting to being the same town as the victim) may be used by prosecutors (who's objective, by the way, is getting a conviction not determining who the guilty party actually is). I.e., if you get arrested or threatened with arrest, keep your mouth shut. The problem is in practice people who are scarred shitless after being arrested can usually be bullied into saying something. In a just society I think police interrogations (often involving deceit and mild torture) would have to be inadmissible in court.
Peter Ward,though i've linked back to my own self once today already, i'll risk it once more, only to point you to the Russell block quote at the end of this post.
Peter Ward---Also in the interests of justice, shouldn't the police dispense with invasive "investigations" altogether? Let the perps come in on their own, with the encouragement of the Village.
Discoursing in authoritative tones on subjects beyond one's expertise is really my gig around here, folks. So, to remind yinz, there are no Miranda rights. There are Miranda warnings.
A distinction without a difference. Miranda is a SCOTUS case which codified rights under the Constitution in the form of required warnings.
Well, no. The following words as used in the above comment are incorrect: 1) "without" 2) "codified" 3) "under" 4) "form" & 5) "required." Other than that you're spot on Inkberrow.As for the prosecutorial objective, it's justice. Haven't you heard?- COT
@Inky: it is a valid distinction. A SCOTUS ruling which alters the precedent set by Miranda does not alter the right to remain silent. It alters the obligation of the police to inform a suspect of that right. Altering one's right to remain silent requires a trip to Bagram (HEY-O! We've got Matt Damon and Arcade Fire, right after this).
Professor---I nevered claim the contrary. Regardless, semantic distinction only. There's nothing inaccurate or misleading about either "Miranda rights" or "Miranda warnings", in that because of Miranda we have the right to be warned.
Miranda establishes no affirmative right or obligation "to be warned."
All of this is to Fifth Amendment explication what the walk-off on Zoolander was to fashion trends.Miranda the SCOTUS case requires warnings under certain circumstances as a function of the right against self-incrimination. As such, the descriptor "Miranda" bonds capably with either "rights" or "warnings" in this connection. Now let's see who can get his undies off without removing his lederhosen.
For practical purposes, nothing in this opinion alters anything about warning someone prior to a custodial interrogation. All both sides are talking about is what happens next.- COT
i'll won't choose a side in this debate until la Rana has weighed in. until then, i'll begrudge Inkberrow this: semantically, i almost always understand correctly what someone means when they say, erroneously or not, "Miranda rights."
La Rana for the win!
Corporate Defense Whore > attorney practicing in the prosecutor's office. . . Priceless.YF
All your rights are ours.
because the right to remain silent pre-exists the obligation of the police to provide a related warning to a suspect at the time of the arrest, by a margin of more than two hundred years, the miranda case recognizes how this right has been violated by the authorities and creates the obligated warning to protect against the potential abuse of power.i'm talking out muh azz mostly, but it seems retardedly basic.
Montag - what you understand people to mean when they say "Miranda Rights" is wrong, insofar as people using the phrase believe that there are Miranda Rights. There aren't.
YF - I'm going with East Coast bias + blogroll. I'm waiting on pins and needles for His Legal Majesty to read the case for these fucks and prove me right...but my guess is he'll go for the earth-shattering "what really matters" comment. La Rana....you've been called out.- COT
Sigh. "Miranda rights", generally speaking, are "rights under Miranda". Granted, it is also Wrong To Say "Miranda Rights" to the extent we fear folks might consider them to have been conferred directly by Ms. Richardson the actress.
Ooops, crucial addendum---.....or Rights characterized by or possessed solely by Ms. Richardson, or Rights to the use of her person, or Rights in concrete form, located Under Miranda......
I feel like we've had this thread before. IOZ is clearly right here. Miranda did not give anyone the right to remain silent or the right to legal counsel; the fifth and sixth amendments did that. Miranda just made it a little harder for cops to stomp on those rights.
What Miranda says is that if police want to question a suspect in custody, they must read him his rights/warnings, else, unless certain exceptions apply, his statements can't be used against him at trial.
Also this "rights/warning" distinction is a little silly. When people talk about Miranda rights, they're referring to the decision. It's the phrase that has emerged to describe the protections afforded by the decision. Of course, you don't get your rights from the Constitution, but we don't call the Bill of Rights the Bill of Warnings or Bill of Advisories. It's a figure of fucking speech, in the same way that the word "rights" is evocative. These things don't actually exist. The word "rights" is meant to evoke some sense that can't do certain things to other people without consent.
Montag - what you understand people to mean when they say "Miranda Rights" is wrong, insofar as people using the phrase believe that there are Miranda Rights. There aren't.Look, if you want to explain what rights are and where they come from etc. and then distinguish them from the things one gets from the decision, then do that. But people do understand what each other are saying when they say "Miranda Rights" or "Miranda Warnings" The two phrases, in every day speech, are synonymous. People hearing either phrase have the same understanding of what is being said. They may not actually know what Miranda says. But that's got nothing to do with a rights/warning distinction. It's fair enough for purposes of this comment section of this blog to say Miranda Rights, even though you might not want to say that in court.
Peter Ward said:Once you say something you've discarded you Miranda rights.Thiis isn't true. First, Miranda just says that the rights/warnings must be read before an in custody interrogation begins (unless certain exceptions apply). So if you're talking to police out on the street, and then they place you into custody, they need to read you your rights before further questions are asked. Once the rights are read, you can waive your rights by continuing to talk to police. However, at any point you can stop the conversation and request an attorney. So the rights don't go away. You just have waived your rights until you invoke them.There are plenty of cases where people will start saying something, and at a certain point invoke their rights. If they do that, police must stop questioning, until or unless the person then initiates conversation on his own or "spontaneously utters" stuff.
what really matters....
La Rana for the win?
Given that the coppers have big latitude most everywhere I've ever lived, it seems that the decision in Miranda v Arizona is nothing more than another judicial opinion that may or may not have precedential value. The value turns upon......come on, kids, you know the answer......it turns upon......yes, that's right. It turns upon subjective interpretation of what the copper(s) in question was (were) doing, whether it was "custodial," whether it was "interrogation," and for what purpose the "interrogation" (provided it was such) was being conducted.Even if you assume you have "rights" from that Miranda v Arizona decision, they are as illusory as the "right" to privacy in a nation where Uncle Sam has wiretapped your phones and listens in with regularity, without a warrant.Oops.
Post a Comment