If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Boston Bombing suspect has been mirandized. (Link goes to bedside transcript)   (nytimes.com) divider line 157
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

4688 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Apr 2013 at 9:15 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



157 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-23 04:55:48 PM

bv2112: They should have read him his rights immediately. They did so for McVeigh. They did so for the Unabomber. Let's not forget that as despicable as this person is, he is an American citizen in American soil, and is thus afforded the full rights enjoyed by citizens. My understanding is that Miranda rights are fundamental and exist whether or not they are stated by police; since it is his fundamental right, anything he said prior to being read those rights can't be entered as evidence against him. I can see why the government would not read his rights immediately: they think they have a slam-dunk case with a preponderance of evidence and don't need a statement from the defendant to secure a conviction. I find two things troubling, however. First, in the interim between his apprehension and his being read his rights, was he induced to make statements without lawyers present and in unorthodox ways? Second, what is the rubric for the decision to not read Miranda rights to a U.S. citizen in U.S. soil? Is it because he was born abroad? These are dangerous precedents that I believe to be unconstitutional.

/not a lawyer, obviously.


The difference being that McVeigh and the Unabomber were awake, uninjured, and able to comprehend their rights as read to them.  This guy, not so much, not only does a person have to have the mental faculty to understand their rights, they also have to be of sound mind to receive those rights.  You cannot give Miranda rights to a person all drugged up, in and out of consciousness, etc.

A "preponderence of the evidence" is a good legal term....in civil court.  It has no memaning in a criminal case.

Statements he made prior to Miranda MAY be admissible, if a judge agrees that they fit the matrix for the public safety exception.

There is NO evidence to suggest that he was questioned without counsel, and in fact, all the evidence suggests that he wasn't.  He was intubated, he was unconscious, during his initial hearing he was only able to muster one audible word.

Miranda has NOTHING to do with citizenship, or being born abroad, or being naturalized.  It has everything to do with providing equal protection under the law.  Zacarias Moussoui was read his rights, he was not ever an American citizen.
 
2013-04-23 04:57:34 PM

LineNoise: Cythraul: vygramul: Cythraul: vygramul: Government is under no obligation to Mirandize people. That's something people don't seem to comprehend.

Uhh, what do you mean by 'government?'

Government or any of its agents such as policemen.

That's weird. I thought law enforcement officers were required to read miranda rights to arrested suspects.

Nope, however if you don't anything the witness says\does after the arrest is more than likely going to be inadmissible. So its pretty standard practice in case the guy you arrest decides he is going to spill his guts to you in the cop car on the ride back to the station.

However in this case, they have decided they already have all of the evidence they need, and were just hoping to get some intel out of him before a lawyer told him to shut up.


If he chooses to spill his guts in the back of the squad car, those statements are unprompted, given without question being asked, those statements are admissible anyway.

Miranda ONLY applies to custodial questioning.  Nothing else.
 
2013-04-23 05:16:15 PM
Two points:

1.The "Miranda Warning" protects the cops, not you.  It means that once you've been advised of your rights, what you say is admissible as evidence.

2. There are exceptions, one being the "public safety exception" which means that certain statements may be admissible even if the suspect has not been advised.  The fact that so many people in this thread are misunderstanding this leads me to wonder if they're willfully ignorant.
 
2013-04-24 08:22:35 AM

HideAndGoFarkYourself: A "preponderence of the evidence" is a good legal term....in civil court.  It has no memaning in a criminal case.


That's really, really false.

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard for conviction - i.e. the fact-finder has to agree that the elements of the crime were shown beyond a reasonable doubt - but that's not the standard for questions of excluding evidence, etc.

In fact, the ACTUAL standard for whether or not Miranda rights have been waived is - wait for it - preponderance of evidence.  In other words, the Judge (who makes the decision since it is a legal one, not a factual one) reviews the evidence of waiver and establishes whether by the preponderance of evidence the defendant waived his rights under Miranda.  See, e.g.  Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477, 92 S.Ct. 619, 30 L.Ed.2d 618

If you don't know the law (and you clearly don't), why are you commenting as if you do?
 
2013-04-24 10:34:24 AM
meh, fark it.
Our sensitive citizens would never stand for giving militant (whatever religion) killers the treatment that the geneva convention seems to call for
and our military refuses to use the death penalty in court cases anyway
So the treatment would be the same as any other public spectacle.

feel free to continue to coddle bad people
and enjoy the fruits of your labor, America.
 
2013-04-25 03:01:36 AM

natas6.0: meh, fark it.
Our sensitive citizens would never stand for giving militant (whatever religion) killers the treatment that the geneva convention seems to call for


He is a civilian criminal in civilian custody, the Geneva conventions are completely irrelevant to his teeatment.
 
2013-04-25 03:42:23 AM

mattharvest: HideAndGoFarkYourself: A "preponderence of the evidence" is a good legal term....in civil court.  It has no memaning in a criminal case.

That's really, really false.

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard for conviction - i.e. the fact-finder has to agree that the elements of the crime were shown beyond a reasonable doubt - but that's not the standard for questions of excluding evidence, etc.

In fact, the ACTUAL standard for whether or not Miranda rights have been waived is - wait for it - preponderance of evidence.  In other words, the Judge (who makes the decision since it is a legal one, not a factual one) reviews the evidence of waiver and establishes whether by the preponderance of evidence the defendant waived his rights under Miranda.  See, e.g.  Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477, 92 S.Ct. 619, 30 L.Ed.2d 618

If you don't know the law (and you clearly don't), why are you commenting as if you do?


No, it's really, really not false.

Look at the statement the poster made that I was referring to.  His insinuation was that a preponderance of the evidence was clearly established to convict the person, and that a confession wasn't necessary.

In the manner he was using it, is has absolutely NO meaning.

If you don't know how to read (and you clearly don't), why are you commenting as if you do?
 
Displayed 7 of 157 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report