Your understanding is wrong.
Best practice is to read each right, pausing to ask if the suspect understands it, and then getting him to sign or initial by each right. But that’s not at all what’s required. All that the Miranda decision requires is the suspect being told each of his rights, and some indicia of assurance that he understood them. Certain individual departments may require reading, but that’s a policy choice, not a matter of constitutional import.
Oh, sure. There’s a cultural significance to the Miranda warnings that is entirely separate from their legal import. Consider my comment more a response to the general discussion about whether Hank should’ve read them from a card, whether Walt indicated that he understood them, etc.
Hey there, Bricker- would you mind considering a different legal question? I speculated an episode ago that what Hank is doing is probably illegal or inadmissible. Do you have an opinion here?
Hank took up mineral collecting as a hobby after he was injured and couldn’t walk after his confrontation with the murder twins. He was also out of Heisenberg leads, so was at a dead end in the investigation. I took it as a way to show how (temporarily) defeated Hank was mentally as well as physically- as if Marshall Dillon quit being sheriff and took up stamp collecting after getting shot for the umpteenth time, instead of getting right back on the horse.
There may be more to it in the BB mythos-- as the parallel pointed out a few posts up to Hank’s minerals/Walt’s crystals. That’s half the fun of reading these posts. I was listening to an interview with Vince Gilligan where one of the interviewers complimented the double meaning in an aerial shot (in first half of s.5?) that showed spreading Vamanos tents in The neighborhood, how it foreshadowed the return of Walt’s cancer (the tents representing multiplying cancer cells). Gilligan wryly said “wow, I didn’t even know I was doing that!”
I’ve been re-watching past seasons and there’s a great scene, right after Hank was shot and he’s recuperating in the bed. He’s doing his PT, but is all very bitter about it and Junior is over there hanging out. Hank refuses to get out of bed and try to work on getting around with crutches/a walker/whatev. Junior says, “Oh, so because I use crutches, I should just stay in bed for the rest of my life?” Hank is properly shamed and starts working a bit harder at PT. So I’d say Junior’s disability probably serves the plot about as often as such a thing might come up in real life.
Really, 'cause I thought I saw the card in Hank’s hand. 
I’m all caught up on this series thanks to Netflix.
I saw Gomez grimace too. I agree that the ending was a little disappointing as well. For the reason you stated, and it seemed to me that the Nazis had clear shots at Gomez and Hank in the beginning of the shootout. No way all of them would miss as the two ran for cover.
I’m rooting for Jesse to be alive and ok at the end of the series. He’s really my favorite character.
I am a recent law graduate and a lawyer licensed to practice in Arizona. I do not specialize in criminal law, but I’ll take a stab at the questions posed by Marley23.
This tape almost certainly would not be admissible against Jessie. The legal question is whether Jesse was in a situation akin to custodial interrogation. One does not need to be “officially” placed under arrest to warrant a Miranda warning. Rather, it is a matter of whether a reasonable person would believe that, under the circumstances, they were free to leave. The State or Federal Government, in a prosecution of Jesse, would probably lose in a motion in limine (pre-trial motion) on the issue, so the tape would be excluded pursuant to the exclusionary rule (evidence obtained in violation of one’s rights is inadmissible against them).
If Jesse were Mirandized prior to the taping of that video, then it would be admissible against him. It would not be considered hearsay because an opposing party’s out-of-court statements are considered non-hearsay under the rules of evidence.
However, Jesse’s tape could be admissible against Walt, as Walt has no standing to contest the admissibility of the evidence. Why? Because Walt’s rights were not violated in the making of the tape. Only Jesse’s rights were violated. So only Jesse has standing to contest the admission of the tape.
But the admissibility of the tape then hinders on whether it constitutes hearsay or not. Hearsay is “an out of court statement admitted for the truth of the matter asserted.” Indeed, that would seem to apply to the contents of this tape.
But there are hearsay exceptions. As it turns out, this would appear to fall within one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule: Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3): Statement Against Interest.
Yet there is a caveat to this exception: the declarant must be “unavailable” to testify at trial.
So, if Jesse were to die in this shoot-out, then the tape could be used against Walt. Or, if he is adamant against testifying, despite a Court order demanding that he do so.
As for the issue of whether Hank is following DEA protocol or not and whether this would affect the admissibility of the tape - that is a matter for internal affairs and does not play a role in whether constitutional rights were violated.
There is actually one additional wrinkle here that I overlooked, which is something called the Confrontation Clause - the right to confront/cross-examine your accuser, enshrined in the Sixth Amendment.
Nonetheless, if Jesse were to die, the tape would still be admissible against Walt because one waives their right to confront their accuser when one [or one’s agents] kills their accuser to prevent them from testifying. The neo-Nazis would be viewed as Walt’s agents here. An enterprising lawyer might try to argue that Walt did not want anybody to die and that he was screaming for the Neo-Nazis to leave and/or to stop. This argument would be laughed out of court, given the circumstances, especially if Walt’s relationship with the neo-Nazis comes to light, as well as his specific order to put a hit on Jesse, and his phone call to them moments before they arrived on scene. The enterprising lawyer might come back and say that the hit on Jesse was not to “prevent him from testifying,” but because he was a “loose cannon.” Again, this slimy distinction would be laughed out of court, seeing as Jesse was actively working with the DEA at that time. Who would believe that Walt did not at least suspect that this was happening or could happen in the future?
That said, the Confrontation Clause would come into play if Jesse simply did not want to testify. If Jesse was just adamant against testifying, and he was held in contempt of court, the video would not be admissible against Walt.
Very interesting, DonnieBarko. Thank you very much.
When Jesse called Walt to show him the fake money barrel pic, did Walt first look at his phone to see who was calling? Was Jesse still using the Hello Kitty phone, and would a cheap phone like that have the capability to record conversations?
I think he sent Walt the picture first and then called while Walt was looking at the picture.
There are recording devices that plug into the headphone jack. I’m assuming that if the call was recorded, that’s what was used.
OK, back to Todd and how, during the shootout, he looks completely disinterested - like he’d rather be somewhere else. Or maybe…just maybe, he’s not sure who he should be shooting at.
Follow me here: We know he has the hots for Lydia. Todd knows that the best way to continue seeing Lydia is to keep cooking for her. Lydia wants a higher-quality product, and Todd knows the best way to impress Lydia is to become a better cook.
Not only are the best two cooks he knows right in front of him, being shot at, Todd is in fact shooting at the two best cooks he knows.
Makes sense I guess, but I have no idea how that changes the outcome of the shootout. No way Todd can suddenly turn his pistol (which should be running out of ammo any moment now) on his Uncle & Friends, right?
No. I just rewatched the scene. His hands are empty.
Todd’s my idea of the quintessential sociopath. Clean-cut, polite to a fault, someone you’d think you’d want your daughter to bring home to meet the family, but can slaughter an innocent child with as little care as if he were picking his teeth. He may truly be the most evil person on the show. Maybe he’s who Walt goes gunning for at the end.
Unless they are swaddled in purple breakfast clothing. Then hellz yeah!
The above is a perfect description of Gus. From everything we’ve seen so far (meaning it could change), Todd is a flunky who follows orders and tries to please the people in charge. He doesn’t seem to care who that is either. It’s hard to find a real basis for saying he’s more evil than Gus or Walt, who are responsible for far more death and destruction. You could say Todd is apathetic about killing, which they are probably not - although Gus never seemed troubled about the morality of his actions and Walt stopped caring a season or two ago. Todd doesn’t appear to have the ambition to be a major villain or the intelligent to do something Walt is that desperate to prevent. Jack and Kenny, at least, are in charge of their gang.
The only thing that told me is that ABQ must be absolutely crawling with pests. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a tented house in person and in that neighborhood, every other house had one at some point.
I agree with this assessment of Todd. He looks young, innocent, a little naive, and sheepish. But we have all seen that he’s a skilled criminal when he recognized and disabled the nanny cam. He’s cold blooded as we saw when he shot Drew Sharp. And we know that he’s persistent - he seems to be being portrayed as somebody who can cook Meth but lacks the experience to make it perfectly. But he does seem to apply himself and given time I think he’d be able to make it work.
We know he has a crush on Lydia and right now he’s using his boyish charms to try to win her over. All the better if she has sex with him willingly. But how long can she rebuff him before his sociopathic nature takes over and he just takes what he wants?
That’s kind if a stretch. Not every murderer is a rapist, and not every racist is a murderer.
And we don’t have enough information to diagnose him as a sociopath.