Not quite. Spontaneous utterances are admissible.
So if, as he was being loaded into the ambulance, he said “Yes, I did it. I designed the bomb and planted it to kill those people.” then that statement, not made in response to police questioning*, would be admissible.
*nor made in response to any police tactic not designed to elicit a response.
Warants for what?
Thank you for the correction.
Am I correct in assuming they just forgot to read him his Miranda Rights in the excitement of the capture?
Posters above are correct about the effect of not reading Miranda rights. however, there is a statute or court rule, I forget which, that mandates reading rights within x amount of time after suspect is in custody. There’s not much teeth for violations of that rule, but to avoid the issue, there is a “public safety” exception.
The only difference this will make is a few extra motions by defense lawyers, which will be dismissed.
You might be confusing Miranda rights with the obligation to inform someone of the accusation against them. If the government doesn’t want to question the accused, it has no obligation to Mirandize the accused.
If they don’t interrogate him, then it makes no difference. If they interrogate him without reading him his Miranda rights, they will be giving his eventual attorneys something to consider.
Yes, I did leave out that this makes no difference at all if he’s not interrogated.
The standard searches that the cops perform of homes, computers and Internet records. There shouldn’t be any problem getting a judge to sign these quickly.
This was a horric crime and it seems even more important to follow procedures and convict this guy the right way.
No, I’m sure it was planned out well before the arrest.
Your cite says the opposite. Anything that they ask him under the Public Safety Exception can be used in Court against him.
Also, not reading someone their Miranda rights doesn’t mean they do not have a right to an attorney. You always have that right whether you are read your Miranda warnings or not. The rights you have under Miranda (the court case) is the right to be informed of your right to remain silent and to have an attorney.
In the case of this Boston Bomber, the police just want to question him about other bombs without letting him know that he can remain silent or get an attorney. If he knows about these rights, he can still assert them. He can stay silent if he wants, and he can ask for an attorney if he wants.
I agree. However, the government has an obligation to bring the accused before a magistrate for an initial appearance “without unnecessary delay.” and he’d get read his rights there whether they want to question hom or not. Federal rule of criminal procedure 4(d)
An interesting side note, even if there was a Miranda violation, information found as a result of the improperly obtained statement is admissible. The “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine doesn’t apply to Miranda
I don’t know why I’ve never thought of this question before, but you mention “requirement is that a defendant must be aware of his rights..” which I had always known about Miranda. But I had never thought…is the “Miranda warning” always required to make a defendant aware? What if the defendant is a police officer or an attorney with 20 years of practice experience in criminal law? What if it’s a judge? Will a court “assume” that such persons are innately aware of their rights regardless of whether they have been informed?
There are two possible reading of what you are claiming here.
Are you saying that the act of reading Miranda is not required if we just assume for some reason tha suspects are “aware of his rights?” If so, are you unaware that the Supreme Court, including arch-conservatives Rehnquist and Scalia who never take pro-civil liberties positions, emphatically rejected this argument nearly 13 years ago, or are you coyly disagreeing with them?
Or are you just saying that Miranda is about evidence and trial and not arrest per se, and therefore it’s OK to arrest people without the intent of ever charging them with a crime and putting them on trial? Because there are yet more fundamental problems with that. You seem to be either arguing against Miranda/Dickerson itself, or against habeas corpus.
He’s correct, there is no general requirement to Mirandize anyone. It’s a requirement if you want to use information obtained in a police interview of someone who is under arrest or detained, but if you have no desire to use interview information then why Mirandize?
Most DUI defendants aren’t Mirandized, for example, because you don’t usually need to interrogate someone to convict them of DUI.
Frankly, I don’t quite follow how you could reach either of those conclusions from what I said. When I said “there’s no Constitutional requirement that a suspect be read his Miranda rights at all,” what I meant was “there’s no Constitutional requirement that a suspect be read his Miranda rights at all.” That’s it.
As a matter of standard procedure, it’s generally considered best practice to Mirandize a suspect as soon as is practicable, so there will be no question as to the admissibility of his statements. (The public safety exception is of course an exception.)
The Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution to mean that a person must be clearly informed of their rights in order for any information obtained to be used against them. I don’t recall any exceptions based on the defendents knowledge or experience. The instruction is to clearly inform, not make a decision on whether they are already so informed.
But there is ALSO a requirement that you have probable cause to believe a crime has been committed to arrest someone in the first place. If you don’t plan to put the person on trial, arresting them is extremely problematic, legally. You think you’ve discovered a loophole here but I assure you that you have not.