From my Crim Pro classes, I recall that the “Public Safety Exception” to Miranda has to have an element of urgency and immediacy. “Where is the girl?!” “Where are the bombs?!” “Tell me now!!!”
Since days have passed, the argument against that exception is much stronger. I don’t think that for weeks and months the cops can say, “Well, gee, there might be other bombs out there, so we will use the exception.”
But the only thing they need is one federal charge to stick to get the death penalty. Killing the cop is probably only a state charge; same with killing his brother. I think a Civil Rights violation resulting in death just might stick; he killed those people because they weren’t radical jihadists like him…
It would be an interesting legal battle if he fought federal jurisdiction using the interstate commerce clause.
Well, there is some basis. Lopez held that the mere possession of a gun in a school zone did not involve interstate commerce. Morrison held that domestic violence against women did not involve interstate commerce, and Roberts (although upholding the law under the taxing power) held that the ACA violated the interstate commerce clause.
I can see a legitimate argument that a heinous act committed entirely in one state, not against any federal official or property, is not a power under the ICC that the federal government has to punish general crimes.
Marley, Congress doesn’t have a general criminal law power. To create offences, it has to rely on the “necessary and proper” clause, plus one of the other areas of federal jurisdiction under Article I.
The great expansion of the commerce clause has resulted in a corresponding expansion of Congress’ criminal law power. So a successful challenge to the broad view of the commerce clause could reduce the scope of the federal criminal law power.
I still don’t see what interstate commerce has to do with it. Terrorism is a federal crime. Reports on the subject say he’s likely to be charged with crimes including bombing a public place and using a weapon of mass destruction.
Sure, Congress has enacted a federal terrorism statute. But where does Congress get the power to enact it?
There’s nothing in Article I that expressly gives Congress a criminal law power. So where does Congress get the authority to make terrorism a federal crime? Incidental effect on inter-state commerce appears to be the answer for the constitutionality of a lot of federal offenses.
But, as jtgain has pointed out, in the Lopez case, SCOTUS struck down a federal criminal offence of possessing a handgun near a school, because there was no connection to inter-state commerce. That analysis means that for a federal offence of terrorism to apply, the prosecutor will have to link it to inter-state commerce in someway, to bring it within federal jurisdiction.
Thats a relief. Up thread it was discussed that other countries have used their standard legal system to prosecute terror bombers.
Making an American citizen an enemy combatant is a bad precedent to establish. I really would prefer Mass charge him with state crimes (Murder, the bombings etc.). But the Feds always want to horn in.
Damn straight it’s a bad precedent to establish. Letting the government deny suspects their civil rights simply because they’re too eeeeeeevil to deserve them starts us down a slippery slope that ends with the country having a Gestapo who can lock you up forever (or make you disappear forever) simply because someone in power doesn’t like you.
Are his civil rights being violated? If I understand correctly, the government never has an obligation to read you the Miranda warning, but if they forgo it, they run the risk that his testimony won’t be admissible in court. But I suppose that’s their risk to take.
If he’s asking for a lawyer and they aren’t giving him one, I guess that’s different. But failing to remind him that he’s entitled to a lawyer is not the same as refusing him one.
This has to be the stupidist story I’ve seen on this tragedy.
They’re worried about a gun license? Blow up almost 200 people and they are actually checking a gun license? Hey guys did they have a pressure cooker bomb license either?
It just seems like a little follow-up story, not particularly stupid. I doubt it’s going to be even mildly important in prosecuting them, but it’s a info point about the attack and a data point in the public debates about acquisition and registration of guns.
How did they acquire the guns? I’ve got some curiosity about that.
Yeah, I don’t think their motivation is busting Dzhokhar for a gun violation. Most likely the older brother bought the guns as it is a lot less complicated than buying a gun at 19. As a legal resident in many states Tamerlan could have legally bought the guns in various ways that wouldn’t be tracked. Or he bought them off someone in Massachusetts who had them.
But on the off chance somehow they had a person helping them with this in anyway I think the authorities would be very interested in knowing who.
Well, the Miranda issue is now moot; Fox is reporting that he was read his rights at his hospital arraignment today, and replied “no” when asked if he could afford a lawyer.
Can any legal pros comment on how careful the cops have to be questioning a medicated suspect? I vaguely recall this being an issue before. Isn’t there some level of sobriety (for lack of a better word) that’s required?
I don’t object to his being questioned. But wouldn’t want to see his statements thrown out because his defense argues that he’s medicated and mentally impaired.
Some Sodium panthenol in his IV would be quite useful. But the defense would shred the case if that was done.
I don’t meant to steer us off course, but what happened with that Glen Beck reveal that was supposed to happen today? I guess he gave Obama until today to reveal the truth and since I’m assuming Obama ignored him, what did Glenn Beck “reveal”?
I wondered the same thing and asked a face book friend and this is her response.
I guess he thinks there was somekind of cover up. I saw some other reports saying he’s bin Laden’s son. I don’t believe that. He was evidently on a terror watch list before, that doesn’t surprise me & the US does have somewhat of a tight relationship with the Saudi’s, It’s just questionable because of any Saudi terrorism links, bin Laden was a Saudi etc. I personally don’t believe there was any cover up.
But the defense would shred the case if that was done.