Page 5 of 18 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 174

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

  1. #41
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,746

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

    Quote Originally Posted by the makeout hobo View Post
    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.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  2. #42
    Dungeon Master
    Somewhere in Babylon
    Jetboogieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Babylon...
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,295
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    He should have asked for his lawyer. At that point, the questioning would have had to stop.
    Exactly. Case closed IMO. That's all that needs saying.

  3. #43
    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 danarhea View Post
    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.....



    .

  4. #44
    Sage
    soccerboy22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    A warm place
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 10:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    10,723

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cole View Post
    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.....



    .
    From what I gather it came from this ruling:

    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.
    Here is the link if you want to read the entire article. Custodial Interrogation - The Future Of Miranda, Further Readings

  5. #45
    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 soccerboy22 View Post
    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....


    .

  6. #46
    Sage
    soccerboy22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    A warm place
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 10:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    10,723

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cole View Post
    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....


    .
    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.

  7. #47
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Whitewater, CO
    Last Seen
    04-05-16 @ 06:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,260
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    He should have asked for his lawyer. At that point, the questioning would have had to stop.
    Still ... what the police did was coercion. The police really are not supposed to be coercing statements out of people. Clearly, the police had a weak case and needed the suspect to confess.

    I would have told them straight out ... Get me a lawyer. Then I would have sought an IA investigation into the cops over their actions.

  8. #48
    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 soccerboy22 View Post
    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....!!!



    .

  9. #49
    Sage
    soccerboy22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    A warm place
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 10:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    10,723

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cole View Post
    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....!!!



    .
    I know it is kind of stupid in all honesty. So if the Supreme Court is going to address the Miranda Rights I think they should add that if you call for an attorney then the questioning stops, but you have to clearly say you want an attorney. You also don't have to talk to the officers, but you have to specifically say you aren't going to talk to them knowing you may be held for I think 48 hours until they are forced to let you go if no arrest is made. I mean they maybe in there, I have never had the Miranda Rights read to me and I haven't read them in while, but I don't think it would be a bad idea to clearly state what a suspect has to do for the questioning to stop. This way both cops and suspects will know exactly what needs to be said so something like this case will not happen again.

  10. #50
    Rockin' In The Free World
    the makeout hobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Last Seen
    04-24-14 @ 06:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    7,102

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

    Why do people keep on talking about lawyers? That is a different right that has nothing to do with this. A suspect has a right to an attorney. A suspect has a right to remain silent. These are two completely separate rights and you can invoke one without the other. For whatever reason this suspect chose not to ask for a lawyer. That is his choice. It has no bearing, however, on whether he may choose to remain silent or not.

    As to the case itself... He went two entire hours without answering questions, that clearly to me seems to be that he decided to remain silent. Nowhere in the Miranda rights does it say you have to officially say you're keeping silent. If you don't talk for that long a period, it should be obvious. The police were coercing this man, plain and simple. I don't see how you could take hours worth of silence as anything other than invocation of that right.
    The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet the Makeout Hobo, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).

Page 5 of 18 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... 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
  •