What does Miranda have to do with arresting someone and putting them on trial? You can have probable cause for arrest and put someone on trial without ever being required to Mirandize them.
Google, “DUI and Miranda”, most DUI defendants are never read Miranda because there is little reason for interviews in DUI cases.
Yeah.
Lots of people get arrested and never go to trial. Arresting someone is the cop’s job; prosecuting them is the prosecutor’s job.
I don’t think I’ve discovered anything. I think you are still reading something into the point I was making which I never said. Let me see if I can be more explicit:
You can arrest, interrogate, and successfully try somebody without ever reading them their rights. If you do so, then what they said during the interrogation may not be admissible in court. But if you have other evidence (like, you’re charging them with blowing shit up and their house was full of a bomb factory) then they can be tried and convicted on that evidence alone.
If the police have eye witnesses, video of the crimes, and other forensic evidence, the prosecutor may not need to use anything in court that the suspect says after he is arrested. That is not a loophole, that is a fact.
People are arrested and never tried all the time. A pursuant trial isn’t a qualification to make a legitimate arrest. Probable cause is sufficient to arrest, but is not sufficient to convict. It is sufficient to try someone, but In the Robert Blake murder case at arraignment a judge warned the prosecution that they had no evidence beyond probable cause to try a co-defendent and he was promptly released. An prosecutor using reasonable discretion should not seek to try someone based on probable cause alone in most circumstances because it is such a low threshold.
Let’s not forget that 95% of all felony cases that are convicted are plea bargains, so what is admissible in court is generally not an issue. Folks should remember that Law and Order and CSI are fictional TV shows, not documentaries.
Yes, but whether or not statements are admissible factors into whether to make a deal, and how good a deal to offer. On the other hand, Sucessful suppression motions based on Miranda are truly rare.
The plea bargains depend on what evidence will be admissible in court.
Sometimes. That is why I said “generally”.
And not getting Mirandized didn’t save Miranda himself in the end. The case that established the Miranda warning to begin with didn’t establish that failing to give the warning was fatal to getting a conviction, only that it could result in statements made by the defendant under questioning thrown out. Miranda got his original conviction voided, but was tried again and convicted based on other evidence.
So, to boil it down (let’s see if I have this correct):
The authorities are concerned that, once they inform him of his right to remain silent, etc., he’s going to say “Oh yeah, I forgot about that! I ain’t saying nothing to you coppers! I want a lawyer!”
Really? Mirandizing (sp?) him is going to inform him of something he doesn’t already know and cause him to clam up?
Seriously wondering what I’m missing,
mmm
Maybe it’s been mentioned above and/or maybe I’m all wet but… mightn’t it have something to do with whether he is treated as a criminal with all the related rights or as an enemy combatant and whatever that entails?
Perhaps once they read him his rights they’ve crossed a line that they don’t want to cross. Wouldn’t want to give up the chance to water-board him down the road would we?! 
If you are talking about whether statements made during an arrest and interrogation are admissible, then I agree with you. But it sounded like you were talking about all evidence. In that case, it’s always an issue whether the evidence police have against you is admissible or not.
That’s about it. It might not sound effective, but it is an additional tool that law enforcement officers can take advantage of.
It’s getting a lot of press because everyone understands Miranda Rights from watching Law and Order.
If the things he says (in response to police questioning) before being read his rights are inadmissible as evidence in court, then he may be more willing (if he has a conscience) to disclose useful information, since it will not cost him anything. Once he’s been Mirandized, anything he says may hurt his defense, so even if he wants to help prevent further public bloodshed, he may be reluctant to speak, since it could hypothetically make it harder to defend himself in court.
It’s not so much about whether he is aware of his rights, it’s this:
Before being Mirandized: anything you say (in response to police questioning) can NOT be used against you in a court of law.
After being Mirandized: anything you say CAN be used against you in a court of law.
The point of the “public safety exemption” is that (if the courts accept its invocation) the things he says are admissible at trial even though he wasn’t Mirandized.