Miranda rights

lyndausvi

This whole thing about Tsarnaev not being read is Miranda rights has me wondering.

As a US citizen, regardless if they have been read to someone or not the rights still exist right?  

Now I've watched enough Law and Order and other police shows to know if I'm ever arrested I'm just going to remain silent and ask for a lawyer regardless if read them to me or not. 

He just took his citizen test last year, so it's possible he knows his rights.  Even without being Mirandize, can't he just invoke his 5th amendment rights?

J&K10910

Well, even a lot of American born citizens don't have a good grasp on their rights.  And when you're in a situation like that, adrenaline running high, chaos, people freaking out trying to get more information, the chance that you'd be calm and collected enough to say "Hey, wait, I have rights!" is smaller.

Regardless of whether or not he could have invoked his rights without being Mirandized (he could have), it is law enforcement's responsibility to do it.  A ton of information/evidence could be thrown out if they don't follow proper procedure.  And in emotional and tense situations, people need to be reminded of their rights.  Especially if they have police and SWAT and bomb squads yelling at them telling them they just need to tell them where the bombs are, etc. 

J&K10910

Well, I don't think he should be tried as a terrorist either.  I mean, he commited an act of terror, but so did Timothy McVeigh, and he was an America citizen that got all the same rights as any other American criminal.

Sierra524

Ive been looking up a lot about this and from what I understand, he didnt have to be mirandized because of the public safety exception. It allows law enforcement to question the suspect prior to reading his rights if they believe he is an imminent public safety threat. Because of this exception, government can still question a suspect without reading Miranda rights and still use his statements in trial.

ETA: I understand why they didnt Mirandize him...why tell him "you have a right to remain silent" when they needed to know if there were any other threats (this is the reason for the public safety exception). FWIW, he cant even speak right now because of injuries to his neck and throat...I doubt he has said much of anything they can use agaisnt him so far. 

lyndausvi

Even if the police question him  without Mirandizing (?) him he has the right not to talk to them.  I think they would "hope" he would tell them about other possible bombs or who he is working with, but he as the right not to talk,

Now that he is in the hospital it's quite possible he will think clearly and not talk.  Unlike if he was in the moment and just slips up.

MairePoppy

The explanation I heard this morning: Any information that the suspect gives before he is read his Miranda rights will not be used for evidence, if he goes to trial. The information will be used to protect public safety. Once his Miranda rights are read, any information gathered will be used to prosecute him. 

J&K10910

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_chit-chat_miranda-rights?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:14Discussion:db33def4-38ae-4510-9da6-767fb971f456Post:e5daff5d-49a3-495e-ac9b-0c8b9b148ee3">Re: Miranda rights</a>:
[QUOTE]Even if the police question him  without Mirandizing (?) him he has the right not to talk to them.  I think they would "hope" he would tell them about other possible bombs or who he is working with, but he as the right not to talk, Now that he is in the hospital it's quite possible he will think clearly and not talk.  Unlike if he was in the moment and just slips up.
Posted by lyndausvi[/QUOTE]

Yes, but unless the police advise him of that right, THEY did something wrong, and evidence can be thrown out.  It's called criminal procedure.  There is a procedure.  It was not followed.

They may have had grounds for a public safety exception immediately following his arrest, but I think the time for that has now passed.

J&K10910

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_chit-chat_miranda-rights?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:14Discussion:db33def4-38ae-4510-9da6-767fb971f456Post:c12a3983-7331-481b-87c1-c0b038523a9b">Re: Miranda rights</a>:
[QUOTE]The explanation I heard this morning: Any information that the suspect gives before he is read his Miranda rights will not be used for evidence, if he goes to trial. The information will be used to protect public safety. Once his Miranda rights are read, any information gathered will be used to prosecute him. 
Posted by MairePoppy[/QUOTE]

Right, but there are also government officials calling for him to be held as an "enemy combatant" which would nullify pretty much ANY rights he has. 

J&K10910

For once, I 100% agree with everything Retread just said.

QueerFemme

He has a right not to talk. But typically, when read his miranda rights, the cops have to stop questioning him once he asks for legal counsel. Without miranda, they can question him and badger him as much as they want "in the interest of public safety".

MoonlightSilver

Everyone has the ability to sit silently and refuse to answer questions, whether someone tells you you have that right or not. 

J&K10910

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_chit-chat_miranda-rights?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:14Discussion:db33def4-38ae-4510-9da6-767fb971f456Post:78565d44-f630-4819-bf31-968ffc2038d2">Re: Miranda rights</a>:
[QUOTE]Everyone has the ability to sit silently and refuse to answer questions, whether someone tells you you have that right or not. 
Posted by MoonlightSilver[/QUOTE]

Duh.

But that's not really the point.  The point is that there is an established procedure.  That established procedure involves informing people of their rights.  Because you can't assume anyone knows anything.  ANd if you don't FOLLOW the established procedure, then you're screwed when it goes to trial.

All these people saying "he doesn't need to be TOLD his rights" will be biting their tongues if this guy walks free on the technicality of not being able to use any information because they didn't follow the procedure properly.  He could flat out say "I blew up the Boston Marathon" and if he wasn't Mirandized, there's not a damn thing they can do with it.

lyndausvi

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_chit-chat_miranda-rights?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:14Discussion:db33def4-38ae-4510-9da6-767fb971f456Post:a86972a0-072d-4ec7-b1ae-9810b2f13bcc">Re: Miranda rights</a>:
[QUOTE]Miranda Rights are a touchy subject for me. Everyone has heard the Miranda Rights a thousand times, thanks to television.  Most people believe, incorrectly, that they "know" them.  They don't. People have been raised to believe the police are your friends, and you should always cooperate with them.  NOT IF YOU ARE ARRESTED. The ONLY words out of your mouth should be, "I want a lawyer."  Remember the little part of Miranda that says, "anything you say can, and will, be used against you in a court of law"?  That "and will" should be put in caps and bolded. People willingly spill their guts to the cops, thinking they'll use the information to clear them.  They don't.  The police collect that information to be used against you at your trial. Determining your guilt or innocence is not their job. You aren't allowed to lie to the police, but they're allowed to lie to you.  They can tell you other people have implicated you even if they haven't, claim the've got evidence they don't - a whole host of things. Don't assume you can't be forced to confess to something you haven't done.  You can.  Many, many, many people have, after being subjected to intense grilling for hours and hours and hours.  It's a form of mental torture.  Google "false confessions." Innocent people get arrested all the time.  Innocent people get convicted.  The Bush Administration did a good job of stripping the justice system for people "accused of terror crimes."  He may get tried in a secret court and we may never hear about it.  That scares the heck out of me, as well as the fact that Gitmo was never closed. A good portion of the public is ready to lynch this guy without a trial, and that scares the heck out of me. This isn't the America I know and love.
Posted by RetreadBride[/QUOTE]

<div>Yep.   </div><div>
</div><div>A little off topic, but I had a friend in St John who was arrested at gun point at a restaurant on suspicion he was a wanted man from Montana.  Some lady at restaurant thought he looked like a guy she saw on American's Most Wanted.   Now he had never been to Montana, nor any states west of the Mississippi.    He immediately called a lawyer.   </div><div>
</div><div>Hours went by, lawyer was called.  Finally the cops came in and said "why didn't you tell us your brother was an FBI agent?"  He said "My FBI brother told me to always call a lawyer before you talk to the police, even if you are innocent."</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Anyway, I do know the purpose of Miranda.  It was more like in this day and age of information I would be surprised if he even talks to the police without a lawyer.   I know I wouldn't.</div>

lyndausvi

For the record I think he should be read his Miranda rights.   I'm not at all comfortable that people think it's okay he will not be. 

MoonlightSilver

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_chit-chat_miranda-rights?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:14Discussion:db33def4-38ae-4510-9da6-767fb971f456Post:cdb9f003-2db3-4294-9db8-8696aefd2be0">Re: Miranda rights</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Miranda rights : Duh. But that's not really the point.  The point is that there is an established procedure.  That established procedure involves informing people of their rights.  Because you can't assume anyone knows anything.  ANd if you don't FOLLOW the established procedure, then you're screwed when it goes to trial. All these people saying "he doesn't need to be TOLD his rights" will be biting their tongues if this guy walks free on the technicality of not being able to use any information because they didn't follow the procedure properly.  He could flat out say "I blew up the Boston Marathon" and if he wasn't Mirandized, there's not a damn thing they can do with it.
Posted by J&K10910[/QUOTE]

<div>In terms of trials and evidence, of course he needs to be read his rights. But a lot of people on my facebook and other places are assuming that his rights are taken away or don't exist if the police don't read his rights, which is simply not true at all. They're two separate issues; the right he has, and the procedure which allows for evidence collection. </div>

winelover123

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_chit-chat_miranda-rights?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:14Discussion:db33def4-38ae-4510-9da6-767fb971f456Post:c12a3983-7331-481b-87c1-c0b038523a9b">Re: Miranda rights</a>:
[QUOTE]The explanation I heard this morning: Any information that the suspect gives before he is read his Miranda rights will not be used for evidence, if he goes to trial. The information will be used to protect public safety. Once his Miranda rights are read, any information gathered will be used to prosecute him. 
Posted by MairePoppy[/QUOTE]

This is what I've heard too. They think that there could be other plans/bombs so that's why he hasn't had his rights read. I think there's some sort of exception when public safety comes into play, but I'm really not sure. From what I've read, even if he confesses to everything right now, it won't be used in his trial because he hasn't had his rights read.

J&K10910

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_chit-chat_miranda-rights?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:14Discussion:db33def4-38ae-4510-9da6-767fb971f456Post:97c8377d-efc3-44ed-bef4-fd68481e447b">Re: Miranda rights</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Miranda rights : In terms of trials and evidence, of course he needs to be read his rights. But a lot of people on my facebook and other places are assuming that his rights are taken away or don't exist if the police don't read his rights, which is simply not true at all. They're two separate issues; the right he has, and the procedure which allows for evidence collection. 
Posted by MoonlightSilver[/QUOTE]

People are probably assuming that because some people DO want to take away his rights.  If he is held as an enemy combatant, he does not have a right to an attorney, to remain silent, to due process, or even to be charged.  They could hold him forever and never even charge him.

emeejeeayen

FI is in law school so he's been learning about a lot of miranda stuff this year. What I found very interesting was that when his dad was in law school (his dad is 68, I think?) there were no miranda rights, if I understand correctly. I always thought it was somehow embedded into our legal system from the get go, but I guess it's (within the scheme of things) a fairly new thing. ::shrug::

Is anyone else worried about this asshole's cat, though? I keep seeing websites post his twitter feeds with all the pics of his cat, and I'm just like UGH is anyone taking care of it now?! The cat didn't do anything wrong! Alas.

MoonlightSilver

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_chit-chat_miranda-rights?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:14Discussion:db33def4-38ae-4510-9da6-767fb971f456Post:617ded14-5e96-465b-a78d-92d2f126a524">Re: Miranda rights</a>:
[QUOTE] Is anyone else worried about this asshole's cat, though? I keep seeing websites post his twitter feeds with all the pics of his cat, and I'm just like UGH is anyone taking care of it now?! The cat didn't do anything wrong! Alas.
Posted by emeejeeayen[/QUOTE]

<div>As far as I understand, the police searched his house. If they did that, they probably saw the cat and it probably went to a shelter. Which might be worse than starving at home. =\</div>

lyndausvi

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_chit-chat_miranda-rights?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:14Discussion:db33def4-38ae-4510-9da6-767fb971f456Post:617ded14-5e96-465b-a78d-92d2f126a524">Re: Miranda rights</a>:
[QUOTE]FI is in law school so he's been learning about a lot of miranda stuff this year. What I found very interesting was that when his dad was in law school (his dad is 68, I think?) there were no miranda rights, if I understand correctly. I always thought it was somehow embedded into our legal system from the get go, but I guess it's (within the scheme of things) a fairly new thing. ::shrug:: Is anyone else worried about this asshole's cat, though? I keep seeing websites post his twitter feeds with all the pics of his cat, and I'm just like UGH is anyone taking care of it now?! The cat didn't do anything wrong! Alas.
Posted by emeejeeayen[/QUOTE]<div>
</div><div>Well the rights are in the constitution.

<div>Miranda itself refers to the  1966 Supreme Court case Miranda vs Arizona that basically said prosecutors have to make sure that defendants had been informed of their rights to  an attorney and to remain silent in order to use anything told to them or the police in court.   The police tend to do it because it makes the most sense to tell them at the time of arrest so it's clear that any thing told can be used against the defendant in court.    </div></div>

Peledreamsofrain

My husband explained to me that this is a very special circumstance that rarely happens. Usually mirandas have to be read before questioning happens. Most times, cops cite them at the actual arrest to get them out of the way, but it doesn't have to happen right then. If the circumstances are such that the police have basis to believe that the suspect has left items of immediate danger to the public in an unkown location, the situation of public safety takes precedent. IE, no waiting for a lawyer to find out if he planted more bombs that are waiting to go off.

emeejeeayen

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_chit-chat_miranda-rights?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:14Discussion:db33def4-38ae-4510-9da6-767fb971f456Post:7f83dfd6-7ed7-47ef-9b83-1bf34aa4e020">Re: Miranda rights</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Miranda rights : Well the rights are in the constitution. Miranda itself refers to the  1966 Supreme Court case Miranda vs Arizona that basically said prosecutors have to make sure that defendants had been informed of their rights to  an attorney and to remain silent in order to use anything told to them or the police in court.   The police tend to do it because it makes the most sense to tell them at the time of arrest so it's clear that any thing told can be used against the defendant in court.    
Posted by lyndausvi[/QUOTE]

<div>Right. It's basically the right to a lawyer vs the right to remain silent.</div>

SB1512

This was a conversation on my friends facebook.  A friend of ours who is in law school had this to say

"I just think it's a relatively cut and dry legal issue. Even if they arrested me for a crime, say arson, police simply arent required to mirandize someone. Even further, they dont have to mirandize a suspect about the crime theyre alleged to have committed. It's just that you wont be able to get those statements admitted as evidence. I dont think they'll have a problem getting a conviction even without statements from the suspect. there's tons of physical, direct evidence.

This exigent circumstance "we dont have to mirandize him" argument seems shaky at best to me. To say there's an exigent circumstance and ongoing emergency seems a stretch. That said, it's a legal argument for a judge and not a jury to decide.

As far as the suspect's right to counsel, I think the govt would also be in messy territory if the suspect asked and was denied counsel. We're talking about an american citizen committing a crime on american soil. Irrespective of how bad the crime was, it doesn't strip a prospective defendant of constitutional rights contained in the 4th, 5th and 6th amendment."

And I too watch a ton of law and order and when this was on the news the other day I turned to FI and said, if this was me the only words coming out of my mouth would be "i want a laywer please." 

SB1512

Also, I found this article the other day which explained things pretty well. Basically says they are limited in the types of questions they can ask him before they eventually have to read him his rights.  I believe they really can only ask him enough questions to establish whether or not public safety is threatened. If they want to begin to build a case against him then they must read him his rights.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/04/19/1898851/what-you-need-to-know-about-why-the-boston-bombing-suspect-hasnt-been-read-his-miranda-rights/

Simply Fated

I was on the fence until I heard Ann Coulter talk about it. Besides her argument being illogical, she also made a snide remark about NY. I just think that it should be all or nothing. It's not like he's going to magically decide to talk just because no one told him he didn't have to..

nextrightthing

They can interrogate him for seven hours without reading him his rights, but if they do that, nothing he says is admissible against him.  The Miranda issue is a non-issue unless he said anything that is essential to the government's case against him.  The issue comes up more with confessions.

I'm less concerned about whether or not he was Mirandized (yes, that's a word , and more concerned about the talk of trying him in the military courts or holding him as an enemy combatant.  That is when things get very, very scary.  I am 100% with Stage on this.  The idea that we strip away someone's constitutional rights just because what he did is really, really bad is terrifying. 

Peledreamsofrain

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_chit-chat_miranda-rights?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:14Discussion:db33def4-38ae-4510-9da6-767fb971f456Post:e00a4d52-1462-4120-9c11-e2977b96b36d">Re: Miranda rights</a>:
[QUOTE]This was a conversation on my friends facebook.  A friend of ours who is in law school had this to say "I just think it's a relatively cut and dry legal issue. Even if they arrested me for a crime, say arson, police simply arent re quired to mirandize someone. Even further, they dont have to mirandize a suspect about the crime theyre alleged to have committed.<strong> It's just that you wont be able to get those statements admitted as evidence.</strong> I dont think they'll have a problem getting a conviction even without statements from the suspect. there's tons of physical, direct evidence. This exigent circumstance "we dont have to mirandize him" argument seems shaky at best to me. To say there's an exigent circumstance and ongoing emergency seems a stretch. That said, it's a legal argument for a judge and not a jury to decide. As far as the suspect's right to counsel, I think the govt would also be in messy territory if the suspect asked and was denied counsel. We're talking about an american citizen committing a crime on american soil. Irrespective of how bad the crime was, it doesn't strip a prospective defendant of constitutional rights contained in the 4th, 5th and 6th amendment." And I too watch a ton of law and order and when this was on the news the other day I turned to FI and said, if this was me the only words coming out of my mouth would be "i want a laywer please." 
Posted by SB1512[/QUOTE]<div>
</div><div>This is the issue exactly.  By sacraficing the Miranda rights, the police understand they won't be able to use his statements as evidence in his trial.  </div><div>
</div><div>But they don't care right now about that.  The issue is wether or not there are more bombs out there that he can tell them about.  In fact, they probably straight up told him "hey, we won't mirandize you, and you can admit where these are without it being held against you.  In fact, it'll probably reduce your punishment if you help."</div><div>
</div><div>I don't think it's a stretch to assume that there are potentially more bombs hanging about (at least at their assembly sites).  These police are stuck between a rock and hard place.  Either they wait while a lawyer  shushes the client, or they sacrafice potential evidence in order to keep people safe with the understanding that it could let him out sooner from jail.</div><div>
</div><div>It's a tough call.  They get crapped on by the public either way.  I don't envy them thier jobs at all.</div><div>

</div>

lyndausvi

I'm less concerned with the right to remain silent than the right to counsel.  There seems to be a lot of evidence without a statement, but everyone should have a right to a lawyer.

I also agree with being very concerned about him being charged in military court or hold him as an enemy combatant.  That is some scary stuff.

lyndausvi

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_chit-chat_miranda-rights?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:14Discussion:db33def4-38ae-4510-9da6-767fb971f456Post:2771a979-1ddf-4e27-aa49-438b3501ed6e">Re: Miranda rights</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Miranda rights : This is the issue exactly. <strong> By sacraficing the Miranda rights, the police understand they won't be able to use his statements as evidence in his trial.   But they don't care right now about that.  The issue is wether or not there are more bombs out there that he can tell them about.  In fact, they probably straight up told him "hey, we won't mirandize you, and you can admit where these are without it being held against you.  In fact, it'll probably reduce your punishment if you help.</strong><strong>" </strong>I don't think it's a stretch to assume that there are potentially more bombs hanging about (at least at their assembly sites).  These police are stuck between a rock and hard place.  Either they wait while a lawyer  shushes the client, or they sacrafice potential evidence in order to keep people safe with the understanding that it could let him out sooner from jail. It's a tough call.  They get crapped on by the public either way.  I don't envy them thier jobs at all.
Posted by Peledreamsofrain[/QUOTE]<div>
</div><div>Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Public Safety Exception allows the evidence to be admissible?    Which is why a lot of people find it to be problem.

</div>

J&K10910

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_chit-chat_miranda-rights?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:14Discussion:db33def4-38ae-4510-9da6-767fb971f456Post:9a4b5d10-fe67-4659-bf14-ad8bf55fdff9">Re: Miranda rights</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Miranda rights : If he gets tried in Boston, he will have a fair trial. I can't gurantee the inmates won't get to him first....(being serious).
Posted by GinaMelody[/QUOTE]

How on EARTH do you figure he'll have a fair trial if he's tried in Boston? 

peekaboo2011

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_chit-chat_miranda-rights?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:14Discussion:db33def4-38ae-4510-9da6-767fb971f456Post:cc58dd57-0d49-4f6c-8c9f-fae7e41b7b99">Re: Miranda rights</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Miranda rights : How on EARTH do you figure he'll have a fair trial if he's tried in Boston? 
Posted by J&K10910[/QUOTE]

<div>
</div><div>This.  </div><div>
</div><div>My guess is it doesn't matter if he's tried in state or federal court, he'll request a change of venue, and they'll grant it.</div>