http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_supreme_court_miranda_rights
as a non-lawyer, I don’t even see the debate here, or why it wasn’t 9-0. The suspect was told of his right to remain silent, said he understood it, proceeded to answer questions, even if reluctant, and confessed. No lead pipes or water hoses.
Why the question?
I’m only a few minutes into reading any of this, but a seat of the pants response:
A “reluctant” answering of some questions after saying he understood his rights – even if that is what happened, which also appears to be in some controversy since all the officer said about it was “I believe I asked him” and “I don’t know that I orally asked him” – isn’t all that it takes for this to be a slam dunk.
In order to talk to the police during the interrogation, he had to have waived his rights to have an attorney present and to refrain from self-incrimination. Waiver has historically been a high hurdle for the prosecution to prove. A big question here was whether simply sitting there for a few hours saying Yes and No, and then finally answering the question about the shooting, added up to a waiver of that right. In order for the statement he made to be admissible, we have to read his behavior to mean that he understood his right to remain silent and waived it.
I’m certain that there is a perspective on the issue that finds this an easy conclusion to draw: he wasn’t talking much, but he didn’t say he refused to talk, and he said a few words from time to time, therefore, he wasn’t invoking the right to remain silent, and by talking after being read those rights he waived them. Still, the Supreme Court, in drawing it, went a bit further to find a waiver than it has previously done, and that’s why it wasn’t 9-0.
The opposing perspective is that Miranda’s rules are safeguards against police interrogation tactics that pressure incriminating evidence out of a suspect despite the suspect’s unwillingness to talk, and here, it seems at least fairly clear that the suspect was unwilling to talk. In order to find that Miranda doesn’t protect this suspect in this case (this perspective would argue), we’d have to have a very clear waiver of those protections, not simply the eventual succumbing to the interrogation.
I don’t get it either. He apparently spoke enough.
I misspoke here. For the most part he wasn’t even doing that.
Yeah, I’m not sure I understand the dissent either. So if a suspect verbally says he is invoking his right to remain silent, and as the interrogating officers are leaving the room, the suspect yells, “Yeah I did it, you bastards, and there’s not a damn thing you can do about it!” Is that comment precluded from being introduced as evidence because he invoked his right to remain silent?
That’s essentially what the defendant’s defense was.
There’s rather a huge difference between shouting an admission at a retreating officer and being interrogated. That’s kind of what Miranda’s all about.
This guy didn’t even verbally invoke his right to remain silent.
Would a series of body tattoos that say “I choose to remain silent during all investigative questioning” be sufficient? How about for a mute person?
This is my own ignorance here, but I had no idea police were ever required to stop asking questions . . . I always thought they simply had to inform you that you were allowed to ignore their questions, and then they could question you until they were blue in the face, provided they didn’t somehow try to force you to answer. Apparently I was mistaken.
As a card-carrying liberal, I guess I should be on the side of the dissent here, but it’s hard to get too upset about the Court restricting a right I didn’t even know I had.
Well, they can question you until they’re blue in the face(s) if you have an attorney present.
So…being silent implies that you don’t wish to remain silent.
Brilliant.
No, being silent doesn’t serve as an explicit announcement that you are invoking your legal right to remain silent.
In any event, if he had actually remained silent he wouldn’t have confessed to the murder.
So…anybody with details on the case, how long was he “silent” before he started talking? Was it a case of him just not initially responding to questions, or did he sit there silent while being hounded for 45 minutes and eventually he cracked?
From the article:
I think it’s a good indication that the wording of the Miranda Rights are not as clear as they could be. If I was told I had the right to remain silent, without any further information, I would assume I had to actually remain silent. I’d take that “Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law” to include even declaring that you want to remain silent.
If they really wanted to, it would be really easy to fix. Flat out ask the suspect if he wants to invoke his rights.
So do we have the right to remain silent? Or do we have the right to have the right to remain silent?
I mean, can I just sit there quietly while the cops ask questions over and over and over for days and days, the process drawn out to absurd lengths, as long as I don’t specifically tell the police “I am going to remain silent”?
I get the logic in the decision, I guess, but somehow it seems kind of wrong that I have a right, but unless I specifically invoke it, no one has to respect it.
I don’t have to declare that I’m using my right to free speech before I say something.
I don’t have to declare my innocence before a trial in order to be considered innocent until proven guilty.
Unions, sporting organizations, bridge clubs, etc. don’t all have to invoke their right to freely associate before every meeting or risk having the police break it up.
Do we have any other rights that a person must invoke before they are respected?
Sure you do. That’s what a plea of innocence is - a request that the court treat you as innocent. If you plead guilty, your guilt is then assumed and the court basically proceeds to sentencing*.
*assuming the prosecution is able to show that your plea wasn’t coerced, bought, etc. and that you understand your rights.
You have to identify your right to free speech as a defense if you are charged with a crime for saying whatever it was you said.
What process was drawn out to absurd lengths? The defendant could simply have said, “stop asking me questions” at any time.
'Cause there is no “wording”,
CMC fnord!
From what I understand, you *should *state you’re invoking your rights protecting you against unlawful search if the cop wants to search your car or home. I’m not certain it’s required, though. What if a person simply doesn’t answer when they ask for permission to search without a warrant?
Good points.
So what happens with the suspect who doesn’t answer questions but never invokes his right to remain silent?