thank you, mr. frank (miranda lawyer)

good morning friends.

reported in the omaha world herald this morning:
john frank

I don’t see a debate here. But Mr. Frank, may you R.I.P.

He’s only mostly dead.

:confused:

You’re Welcome.

Er…

Can I look through his pockets for loose change?

Sorry…

Moderators, please movva dis thing!

Well I don’t thank Mr. Frank. Do you know how many months I could have saved in criminal procedure if Miranda warnings hadn’t been created? Billions!
oooooh, it protects people. ~La de da~!
But it’s an inherent right to provide basic freedom from self incrimination. Yeah? So’s your mom.
But what if you get stopped, wouldn’t you want Miranda protecting you? Um…ok, it’s good in that instance…I guess. But not for anyone else!

My criminal procedure book would have been a hell of a lot simpler if it just said “here are the protections granted to Ender. The rest of you are shit out of luck.”

Oh yeah, and R.I.P. Mr. John P. Frank.

Well, was Miranda a good thing? I’ve heard people say it’s bad law.

E-Sabbath: Care to expound? The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was adopted in part because of the experience of previous generations of people living under English law where the monarch’s men could compel confessions – including ones from innocent people they were convinced were guilty. Miranda vs. Escobedo provided a formulary of rights which police were to honor and to ensure that their arrestees were aware of based on what that amendment (and to a lesser extent the Sixth) provides. A large number of people have argued over the years that it “gives unfair advantage to the criminal” although I don’t see this – it merely assures that the accused is aware of his rights, a conviction being normally quite possible on other grounds than a confession forced out of him.

Interestingly, when a bunch of reactionary congresscritters got together last year (two years ago?) to write a law to overturn Miranda (based on a paragraph in the SCOTUS decision that noted the possibility of a legislative loophole), they were unable to get any support from the law enforcement community, at large.

Most of the police forces actually like having a concrete action that everyone knows and understands that keeps them from losing cases where the defendant accuses the police of not respecting his/her rights. By having the Miranda warning available and memorized and in use at every arrest, it actually protects most police from both errors and false accusations.

I would like to expand on “hearing people say it’s bad law.” I suspect, frankly, it was a news report about two years ago, so probably those congresscritters. Normally, I’m fairly good on citing things, but I was more attempting to convert this into a debate. As a result, I’m afraid this was a bit of posterior reasoning.

Here’s more or less what I was remembering, vaugely.
http://lawschool.stanford.edu/alumni/lawyer/59/feature2.shtml

Does this gentleman have a point?

Without Miranda, most episodes of Law & Order would only be 5 minutes long.

I don’t know if he has a point about the 28,000 figure, but he’s tilting at windmills. Even if the Miranda rule could have been overturned by statute (which SCOTUS fairly recently said no to), most police deprtments would have retained it anyway. Even if Miranda wasn’t or isn’t a constitutional necessity, it’s an even longer standing rule of law that all confessions must be voluntary to be admissible. Most police departments probably would have retained it as a prophylactic measure, as prima facie evidence that the confession in question was given voluntarily.

He’s not at all well.