Page 10 of 18 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 174

Thread: Supreme Court: Suspects must invoke right to remain silent in interrogations

  1. #91
    Professor

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Last Seen
    11-21-14 @ 03:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,120

    Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    Again, I'm still kind of confused. It's clear, to me, that the guy was invoking his right to be silent while he was silent. Upon speaking, it's obvious he changed his mind about being silent.

    I mean, am I to understand that if someone specifically says now, "I invoke my right to remain silent", and THEN confesses to the crime that what he said while he was invoking his 'right to remain silent' can't be held against him?

    I just don't get any of this. He spoke. He was TOLD, explicitly, that anything he said could and WOULD be used against him. And he spoke. Cut and dry as far as I'm concerned.

    As far as the cops questioning him for hours, well why the hell wouldn't they? He didn't tell them to stop. He didn't ask for a lawyer. Nothing. Why *wouldn't* they continue asking questions? Of COURSE they want him to speak, duh. That's their ****ing job.
    That's the reason we have the Miranda rights. Once one invokes their 5th Amendment rights, the police should stop interrogating him until a lawyer was present.

  2. #92
    Passionate
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    03-07-11 @ 04:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    15,675

    Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

    Quote Originally Posted by FilmFestGuy View Post
    That's the reason we have the Miranda rights. Once one invokes their 5th Amendment rights, the police should stop interrogating him until a lawyer was present.
    Okay, I have just read part of the decision. What you state above (in bold) is correct; however, in invoking your 5th Amendment right, you must invoke it UNAMBIGUOUSLY.

    Held:
    1. The state court’s decision rejecting Thompkins’ Miranda claim was correct under de novo review and therefore necessarily reason-able under AEDPA’s more deferential standard of review. Pp. 7–17.

    (a) Thompkins’ silence during the interrogation did not invoke his right to remain silent. A suspect’s Miranda right to counsel must be invoked “unambiguously.” Davis v. United States, 512 U. S. 452,
    459. If the accused makes an “ambiguous or equivocal” statement or no statement, the police are not required to end the interrogation, ibid., or ask questions to clarify the accused’s intent, id., at 461–462.
    There is no principled reason to adopt different standards for determining when an accused has invoked the Miranda right to remain silent and the Miranda right to counsel at issue in Davis. Both protect the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination by requiring aninterrogation to cease when either right is invoked. The unambigu-ous invocation requirement results in an objective inquiry that “avoid[s] difficulties of proof and . . . provide[s] guidance to officers” on how to proceed in the face of ambiguity. Davis, supra, at 458–459. Had Thompkins said that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk, he would have invoked his right to end the questioning. He did neither. Pp. 8–10.

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1470.pdf
    I don't see how this is a bad ruling.

  3. #93
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

    Quote Originally Posted by FilmFestGuy View Post
    That's the reason we have the Miranda rights. Once one invokes their 5th Amendment rights, the police should stop interrogating him until a lawyer was present.
    He didn't ask for a lawyer.

  4. #94
    Norville Rogers
    Kernel Sanders's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 10:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,730

    Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

    This man was obviously aware of his miranda rights, but not aware that explicitly asking for a lawyer would have ended the interrogation. Perhaps miranda should be updated to include this information.

  5. #95
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Yes they should. It's an exercise not only to remind the People of their rights and abilities, but also to remind the authority that their power is limited. The police should definitely have to read us our rights. .
    The constitution does not say police to remind you of your rights. The idea that some lawyer can get a case over thrown on the basis that police did not remind you of your rights is laughable. It is the individual's responsibility to exercise their constitutional rights.

    Just because most of us may know them doesn't mean that everyone knows them nor does it mean that we can quit informing people when they are arrested by government authority the rights and abilities they have to fight and protect themselves against government force.
    Ignorance of the law and rights is not a defense.


    None of those things are government agents. That's the difference.
    Irreverent. It is not the government's responsibility to remind you of your rights. At most you could petition the government to make constitutional rights a a very thorough class in school.

    Could have and should have. He was also read his rights and knew about it. None of what happened in this case would suggest that having police officers stop reading rights is a good idea
    You have the right to remain silent but nowhere in the 5th amendment does it say police have to shut up and quit asking questions. Do you see "police have to shut up and quit asking questions" anywhere in the 5th amendment?


    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  6. #96
    Professor

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Last Seen
    11-21-14 @ 03:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,120

    Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

    Quote Originally Posted by aps View Post
    Okay, I have just read part of the decision. What you state above (in bold) is correct; however, in invoking your 5th Amendment right, you must invoke it UNAMBIGUOUSLY.

    I don't see how this is a bad ruling.
    If it were limited in scope, I would have no problem either. But it's broadness concerns me. The Roberts Court did the same thing with Citizens United in that they made the ruling SOOO broad that it's a complete alteration of the present state of being when it didn't need to be.

    Now I could easily see innocent people being badgered or tricked into confessions or things that sound like confessions and incriminating themselves simply because they didn't say the right words.

  7. #97
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

    Quote Originally Posted by FilmFestGuy View Post
    If it were limited in scope, I would have no problem either. But it's broadness concerns me. The Roberts Court did the same thing with Citizens United in that they made the ruling SOOO broad that it's a complete alteration of the present state of being when it didn't need to be.

    Now I could easily see innocent people being badgered or tricked into confessions or things that sound like confessions and incriminating themselves simply because they didn't say the right words.
    How can they be tricked? They're told, explicitly, that anything they say can and will be used against them. If they speak, that's on them. No one forces them to speak.

  8. #98
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,971

    Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

    Quote Originally Posted by Groucho View Post
    The problem in this case is that the defendant THOUGHT we WAS exercising his right -- he remained silent and refused to talk. The police refused to accept that and kept questioning him and he eventually broke down.

    I mean, if you're questioning someone and they refuse to say a word, isn't it obvious that they want to remain silent? Why do they have to say "I am remaining silent"?
    Because there needs to be a clear, easily defined, consistant way to measure it. Otherwise you leave it up to police discretion and open up to frivilous law suits as someone claims "Oh, he was silent for [x] amount of time and the cops kept questioning him, its a violation of his rights!".

    There's a lot of wiggle room, both on the part of the cops and on the part of people attempting to sue the state, if you want the cops to play mind reader.

    There's no wiggle room in regards to stating it, either they state it or not. That's pretty simple.

  9. #99
    Professor

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Last Seen
    11-21-14 @ 03:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,120

    Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    How can they be tricked? They're told, explicitly, that anything they say can and will be used against them. If they speak, that's on them. No one forces them to speak.
    Essentially, I think the Miranda Rights are going to have to be changed now so that they state. You have the right to remain silent. If you choose to remain silent, you must state - upon completion of the reading of these rights - I choose to remain silent.

    With the Court saying that you have to explicitly state it; then I think we're going to end up having to have an exact sentence that must be stated.

    But my bigger issue is how this could be interpreted by police to keep badgering someone without a lawyer present to simply get what they want.

    I know most innocent people don't get arrested; but sometimes they do. Our laws must be made to protect those people. When innocent people DO get arrested, they're easily the most flustered and most likely to say something wrong because they're not used to the system having been innocent and all.

  10. #100
    pawn in the game of life
    pragmatic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    10-17-17 @ 05:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,984

    Re: Supreme Court Narrows Miranda Rights, Keeps Michigan Convict in Prison

    Quote Originally Posted by FilmFestGuy View Post
    Essentially, I think the Miranda Rights are going to have to be changed now so that they state. You have the right to remain silent. If you choose to remain silent, you must state - upon completion of the reading of these rights - I choose to remain silent.

    With the Court saying that you have to explicitly state it; then I think we're going to end up having to have an exact sentence that must be stated.

    But my bigger issue is how this could be interpreted by police to keep badgering someone without a lawyer present to simply get what they want.

    I know most innocent people don't get arrested; but sometimes they do. Our laws must be made to protect those people. When innocent people DO get arrested, they're easily the most flustered and most likely to say something wrong because they're not used to the system having been innocent and all.
    My understanding is that in most states, the LEOs' final question is, "Do you understand these rights?". And then they wait for an acknowledgement.

    If the suspect states they understand their rights, then they may or may not decide to answer any further questions. Fair enough. But at some point we have to draw a line for how far we are going to encumber of police from doing their basic job. There needs to balance on both sides of the justice equation.....


    .

Page 10 of 18 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •