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.

(Newser)   Dzhokhar: "So anyway we planted the bombs and then I have the right to what now?"   (newser.com) divider line 173
    More: Obvious, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, federal public defender, bill of rights, home runs, Tsarnaev  
•       •       •

16391 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Apr 2013 at 11:59 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-25 12:28:21 PM

jehovahs witness protection: That isn't the problem. Chances of finding others involved just became impossible.


olddinosaur: If he wasn't mirandized before, anything he said may not be admissable.

Cops f*cked up on that one, evidence was already very solid.


Lost Thought 00: Hell, someone killed one of the kids the NY Daily News falsely splashed across their cover. I can only imagine the torture the general public would do to this kid

awalkingecho: Yeah they found that sumir or Sunil guy's body


Threads like this (and pretty much every one regarding the bombing and aftermath) serve to remind me of just how simply misleading or totally, completely and utterly wrong so much of what you read on the internet actually is.
 
2013-04-25 12:28:24 PM

legion_of_doo: I blame the republicans and the tea party for stealing this guy's right to remain silent.

if only a democratic person were in charge, our constitutional freedoms would have been respected.


guess which of the three categories you fall into?
 
2013-04-25 12:28:27 PM

FLMountainMan: awalkingecho: Goodluckfox: awalkingecho: Goodluckfox: Lost Thought 00: Crewmannumber6: The last thing he wants is for them to let him go. He won't make it 10 feet.

Hell, someone killed one of the kids the NY Daily News falsely splashed across their cover.

Wait, what???

Yeah they found that sumir or Sunil guy's body

Oh, THAT. Dude had probably been dead a good while. Unrelated. The OP made it sound like someone killed him BECAUSE he was named as a possible suspect.

Um... He went missing after the headlines. He posted on his facebook before he fled. So that probably is why.

It takes five seconds on google to find out that you're full of shiat.  Why post in the first place?


This is not what fark led me to believe and I am currently unable to google
 
2013-04-25 12:28:37 PM

sure haven't: olddinosaur: If he wasn't mirandized before, anything he said may not be admissable.

Cops f*cked up on that one, evidence was already very solid.

No, I remember reading that since it was classified as a terrorist act, they had the right to immediately question. Or something to that effect.
Also the fact that everything he's said has been reported on somehow, this thing's in the bag. It comes down to now whether or not he gets the death penalty.


It has nothing to do with it being a terrorist act. There has long been a 'public safety' exception to Miranda (if you drop a gun somewhere while cops are chasing you they can ask you where it is to avoid someone finding it and hurting themselves/others).

I don't think he stopped talking because he heard the warnings. Everyone knows the warnings just from watching TV. The judge told him he could remain silent at the arraignment, which is also when this guy was assigned a lawyer. I think it is much more likely that he had a discussion with his lawyer that led him to realize his cooperation is the only bargaining chip he has to try and avoid the death penalty, so he is keeping his mouth shut while the defense and prosecution discuss it all.
 
2013-04-25 12:28:41 PM
you think you know what's going on.

but you don't.
 
2013-04-25 12:29:11 PM

TigerMWD: ChipNASA: He's INNOCENT. HE WAS FRAMED!! His brother's death at the hands of law Enforcement was MURDER. Plain and simple.
/amidoinitrite

The bold was a nice touch. Perhaps some variation with font size could've been the icing on the cake.


and unnecessarily mixed placed capital letters as well would have topped the *retarded* with a cherry.

/sorry, I'll try harder next time.
 
2013-04-25 12:29:23 PM

Dr Dreidel: jehovahs witness protection: vernonFL: They probably don't need him to say anything to convict him, they probably have enough physical evidence.

That isn't the problem. Chances of finding others involved just became impossible.

Oh.

He's an American, he has rights. You can whine about it, but them's the breaks.

// also not "impossible", just "less easy right now"
// Saddam ended up talking to his American guards a whole lot once we made with the Fruity Pebbles and Doritos


Fruity Pebbles?  Really?  hadn't heard that one...it's almost adorable.

/rain snack cakes down on them
 
2013-04-25 12:29:31 PM
As said before, the problem without Mirandizing him is that anything he said before his official warning is inadmissable as evidence against him.

FTFA:
Sorry to break this to you, but Miranda isn't about protecting your rights. It never was.
Miranda is about giving the police a free pass. It always has been.

The Fifth Amendment is there to make sure we don't have another Star Chamber. We don't want the government using its power to override your free will, and make you confess to a crime so it can punish you. Lots of confessions are purely voluntary. In fact, most probably are. But sometimes the government has to force it out of you, and we don't want that to happen.


But it's hard for courts to tell voluntary confessions from involuntary ones. They have to look at facts and assess things on a case-by-case basis. That's hard. And it's hard for police to know if they're crossing the line, when the line is different for every individual. So the Miranda rule creates an easy line that applies to everyone:
Say the magic words, and the law presumes that the confession was voluntary.

See how easy that was? Not hard. Easy.
 
2013-04-25 12:30:42 PM

legion_of_doo: I blame the republicans and the tea party for stealing this guy's right to remain silent.

if only a democratic person were in charge, our constitutional freedoms would have been respected.


Time for. www.sabinabecker.com
 
2013-04-25 12:31:09 PM

cirby: awalkingecho:
Yeah they found that sumir or Sunil guy's body

There's some question as to when and how he died, though. He's been missing since March 16th, and probably committed suicide that weekend (weeks before the Boston Marathon bombing). The people who thought they saw him were mostly indulging in wishful thinking.


The "missing" poster I saw of that guy was pretty grainy...you could pretty easily THINK you'd seen him anywhere.
 
2013-04-25 12:31:09 PM
In case no one has said so already, +1 Subby!
HotW material.
 
2013-04-25 12:31:56 PM

pute kisses like a man: Zombie DJ: If you can't (heh-heh)....afford an attorney(heh-heh) ...we.....uh......we'll provide one (hee-hee)...for you..BWAHAHAHAHAHA

he'll get a good attorney.  high profile cases like that attract attorneys who want to make a name for themselves.  i don't blame them, it's what you do as a foot soldier of democracy and liberty.  and everyone deserves a competent defense.  fortunately for justice, this guy is toast.

/ i blame bad investigators, not good defense attorneys, for bad guys getting away.
// i do feel sorry if this goes to a public defender though, cause it's going to ruin their social life. at least the high profile goon wants the publicity.  public defenders usually just want to do good.  and, depending on where you live, some places have excellent public defenders.  I would assume boston would.  you have great legal universities and lots of almost sympathetic criminals.  the perfect mix for a public defender.


If I remember correctly, the one they brought in to represent him is a Harvard law grad. The state is going to want to bring in one of the best, if only to avoid possibilities of a mistrial or some other loophole that might get him off.
 
2013-04-25 12:32:13 PM
"If you can't afford an attorney, we will find the dumbest mother-farking lawyer who's stupid enough to take this case..'.

Paraphrased, but from where, I can't remember...
 
2013-04-25 12:32:19 PM

Gunny Highway: awalkingecho: Goodluckfox: Lost Thought 00: Crewmannumber6: The last thing he wants is for them to let him go. He won't make it 10 feet.

Hell, someone killed one of the kids the NY Daily News falsely splashed across their cover.

Wait, what???

Yeah they found that sumir or Sunil guy's body

Washed up at India Point Park in Providence, RI.  I havent seen anything about how long they think he was in the water.


He was already missing for a month wasn't he?
 
2013-04-25 12:32:40 PM

DROxINxTHExWIND: "If anyone can provide this young man with a tenacious, effective defense, it's Miriam Conrad"

I know it sounds crazy, but these reprehensible people are the backbone of our Democracy.


I used to work with a guy who subsequently went on to defend Ramzi Yousef (1993 WTC bomber). His view: We promise everyone the right to a fair trial, which includes a (theoretically competent) defense for the accused. Someone's got to do the job.

I admit, I have always wondered at the dynamics of the attorney-client relationship in that case, since said defense attorney is Jewish.
 
2013-04-25 12:33:57 PM

thornhill: I get that the Feds were worried that there might be a ticking bomb somewhere, but if you've watched just one episode of Law & Order, then you know that 99% of murders in New York City are committed by wealthy, moderately attractive white people.


Dude, did you really just cite Law & Orderto try to illustrate how the American legal system works?  LMFAO.  Between you and awalkingecho, I'm not sure who is funnier.
 
2013-04-25 12:35:40 PM

Lydia_C: DROxINxTHExWIND: "If anyone can provide this young man with a tenacious, effective defense, it's Miriam Conrad"

I know it sounds crazy, but these reprehensible people are the backbone of our Democracy.

I used to work with a guy who subsequently went on to defend Ramzi Yousef (1993 WTC bomber). His view: We promise everyone the right to a fair trial, which includes a (theoretically competent) defense for the accused. Someone's got to do the job.


Defense attorneys are absolutely essential, at least under our current legal system, to keep the government in check and avoid a police state.
 
2013-04-25 12:37:13 PM

imfallen_angel: olddinosaur: If he wasn't mirandized before, anything he said may not be admissable.

Cops f*cked up on that one, evidence was already very solid.

errrrrr.... haven't you been following this? they used a special rule (under the terrorist act) so that they could question him without having to miranda him so that they might get information of accomplices and possible other bombs, etc.

I'd be surprised that under this rule, anything said wouldn't be admissible... he's been miranda(ed), so I'd assume that from now on, anything else said without a lawyer would be an issue.

At this point, this is one of those situations that there is no question about his guilt, all that's left is how much involvement he's had, and the consequences that he'll be facing.


Miranda does not stand for the proposition that LEOs must inform a person of their 5th Amendment rights as a prerequisite to all interrogation, rather it is constitutionally required for statements made during an interrogation to be admitted as evidence at trial.

What I believe you are referring to is that the DOJ is hoping to use is the "public safety" exception to the requirements of  Miranda from  NY v. Quarles. In brief, that exception applies when there is an imminent threat to public safety and LEOs need to know the answer to prevent harm to the public.  In  Quarles, for instance, the police interrogated the suspect about where in an open grocery store he had hid his gun (it was behind a gallon of milk, IIRC).  His statement about the location of the gun was found admissible as evidence against him because the interrogation was a matter of imminent public safety.  In other words, in some circumstances the safety of the public outweighs the right of a person to be read their Miranda rights before making statements to the police.

There is serious doubt about whether the DOJ will be successful in an attempt to extend the public safety exception to this circumstance.  It is, however, unlikely an issue because there appears to be sufficient evidence to convict him outside of whatever he may have said to police.
 
2013-04-25 12:37:15 PM

FLMountainMan: Dude, did you really just cite Law & Orderto try to illustrate how the American legal system works?


thatsthejoke.jpg
 
2013-04-25 12:37:55 PM

thornhill: I get that the Feds were worried that there might be a ticking bomb somewhere, but if you've watched just one episode of Law & Order, then you know that not mirandizing Dzhokhar from the start is going turn the whole thing into a legal train wreck. It's also seems hard to even argue that there could have even been a ticking time bomb scenario given that when he was arrested his whereabouts for the last 24 hours had been mostly accounted for, and that for the better part of the day he was hunkered in boat bleeding. And on top of that, the police ended the lockdown.


Then you didn't pay attention to Law & Order, because it was only a train-wreck because the crucial evidence was gathered during illegal interrogation in that show, and even then, they sometimes found more evidence and won anyway. Plus, they never had a public safety exception issue.

/Only a TV show
//Still surprisingly good about the law
 
2013-04-25 12:39:40 PM

metallion: "If you can't afford an attorney, we will find the dumbest mother-farking lawyer who's stupid enough to take this case..'.

Paraphrased, but from where, I can't remember...


I know a lawyer...

www.bitlogic.com
 
2013-04-25 12:39:43 PM

It's his legal right to remain silent.  It's not like they don't have enough info already.  And if he wants any kind of deal, he's going to have to confess to everything.


I have no problem with any of this.

 
2013-04-25 12:41:10 PM

pute kisses like a man: Zombie DJ: If you can't (heh-heh)....afford an attorney(heh-heh) ...we.....uh......we'll provide one (hee-hee)...for you..BWAHAHAHAHAHA

he'll get a good attorney.  high profile cases like that attract attorneys who want to make a name for themselves.  i don't blame them, it's what you do as a foot soldier of democracy and liberty.  and everyone deserves a competent defense.  fortunately for justice, this guy is toast.

/ i blame bad investigators, not good defense attorneys, for bad guys getting away.
// i do feel sorry if this goes to a public defender though, cause it's going to ruin their social life. at least the high profile goon wants the publicity.  public defenders usually just want to do good.  and, depending on where you live, some places have excellent public defenders.  I would assume boston would.  you have great legal universities and lots of almost sympathetic criminals.  the perfect mix for a public defender.


For what?  They got him on car jacking, manslaughter of his brother, murder of the MIT cop, attempted murder of hundreds of police officers & random bombing.  Hell they could charge him for reckless driving, trespassing and graffiti for bleeding all over that guys boat.   And that's only for his escape attempt on Thursday/Friday.  They don't need to use anything he said in the hospital to convict him, that's all Miranda covers.  He's also a poor college kid, so the only people who are likely to touch the case are anti-death penalty folks.
 
2013-04-25 12:41:17 PM

PanicMan: It's his legal right to remain silent.  It's not like they don't have enough info already.  And if he wants any kind of deal, he's going to have to confess to everything.
I have no problem with any of this.


Maybe, but you never, ever talk to cops.  period.
 
2013-04-25 12:41:28 PM
Here's what I don't understand...When the cops decided not to Mirandize him does that mean that he doesn't have Miranda rights (right to remain silent, right to have an attorney present during questioning, etc.), or just that they don't tell him about his rights?
 
2013-04-25 12:41:55 PM
Best analysis of this case I read said something like this: The fact that the older brother died is the younger brother's greatest weakness AND advantage. Weakness in that it focuses the entire inquiry on him, as the lone surviving suspect. Advantage in that it allows his defense to blame everything they can on a dead guy.
 
2013-04-25 12:42:37 PM

Zombie DJ: If you can't (heh-heh)....afford an attorney(heh-heh) ...we.....uh......we'll provide one (hee-hee)...for you..BWAHAHAHAHAHA


He will be represented by Harvard Law graduate Miriam Conrad, and Yale Law graduate William Frick.  They are smart, experienced lawyers.
 
2013-04-25 12:43:39 PM

olddinosaur: If he wasn't mirandized before, anything he said may not be admissable.

Cops f*cked up on that one, evidence was already very solid.


There is a 48 hour exceptiin to miranda when public safety is a concern. This bombing fell under those regilations. The DoJ chose to end that exception at 16 hours with the FBI claiming they were getting good information of possible connectiona to others. The brothers were in welfare yet funded gun purchases, 6 month trip to Russia, new car, etc.

A conspiracy theorist would state the DoJ pushed to end the exception for political reasons in pushing the lone wolves theory.
 
2013-04-25 12:43:46 PM

Lost Thought 00: Crewmannumber6: The last thing he wants is for them to let him go. He won't make it 10 feet.

Hell, someone killed one of the kids the NY Daily News falsely splashed across their cover. I can only imagine the torture the general public would do to this kid


Did you hear that on CNN or the NY Post? Because I don't believe such a thing happened.
 
2013-04-25 12:44:21 PM

Sin_City_Superhero: Here's what I don't understand...When the cops decided not to Mirandize him does that mean that he doesn't have Miranda rights (right to remain silent, right to have an attorney present during questioning, etc.), or just that they don't tell him about his rights?


The "Miranda rights" are rights enumerated and protected by the United States Constitution. They are applicable regardless of whether a criminal suspect is aware of them.

Many professional pundits who have opposed "Mirandizing" Mr. Tsarnaev have asserted that he will have no right to remain silent unless told that he does; those professional pundits are either lying, fundamentally ignorant of Constitutional law or both.
 
2013-04-25 12:46:18 PM
I honestly have no idea why they didn't mirandize him on day 1.  Any lawyer worth half a damn would come in to that situation knowing how much physical evidence there is and make a deal that prevents the death penalty in exchange for total candor about what occured.  Make sure the kid knows that any lies will result in the deal being called off and away you go.  It's not like the whole case hinges on his statement, but if some judge somewhere decides that the constitution REALLY SHOULD apply to human beings then enough of a monkey wrench could be thrown into the works to take this away from being a slam dunk conviction.
 
2013-04-25 12:47:57 PM

reillan: PanicMan: It's his legal right to remain silent.  It's not like they don't have enough info already.  And if he wants any kind of deal, he's going to have to confess to everything.
I have no problem with any of this.

Maybe, but you never, ever talk to cops.  period.


I hope that, if you're the victim of a crime, the witnesses don't think like that.
 
2013-04-25 12:49:01 PM

DROxINxTHExWIND: "If anyone can provide this young man with a tenacious, effective defense, it's Miriam Conrad"


I know it sounds crazy, but these reprehensible people are the backbone of our Democracy.


I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic about the reprehensible part (I'm they are lawyers after all) but this has always bothered me, why can't people understand that defending scum does not make the lawyer scum (they may have already been scum however). Its bothers me just as much when people can't understand that actors are not there characters. It makes me weep for humanity.
This kid deserves a credible defense, the judge needs to make sure no BS takes place during the trial and the prosecutor needs to seal the deal or in short  Justice.
 
2013-04-25 12:50:42 PM
edit:
(I mean they're lawyers)

Actors are not their characters
 
2013-04-25 12:51:12 PM

Dimensio: Sin_City_Superhero: Here's what I don't understand...When the cops decided not to Mirandize him does that mean that he doesn't have Miranda rights (right to remain silent, right to have an attorney present during questioning, etc.), or just that they don't tell him about his rights?

The "Miranda rights" are rights enumerated and protected by the United States Constitution. They are applicable regardless of whether a criminal suspect is aware of them.

Many professional pundits who have opposed "Mirandizing" Mr. Tsarnaev have asserted that he will have no right to remain silent unless told that he does; those professional pundits are either lying, fundamentally ignorant of Constitutional law or both.


So if they were questioning him without Mirandizing him, and he said "I'd like a lawyer, now" they'd have to stop the interrogation, or else everything he said AFTER that point would be inadmissable, but anything said prior to his request would still be admissable, correct?
 
2013-04-25 12:51:48 PM

DROxINxTHExWIND: "If anyone can provide this young man with a tenacious, effective defense, it's Miriam Conrad"

I know it sounds crazy, but these reprehensible people are the backbone of our Democracy.

Agreed.
Freedom, liberty and justice require us to hold our noses occasionally.
Distateful or not, it is completely necessary for these types of people.


He gets to remain silent because he is an American and it is his right.
He will get legal consul because he is an American and it is his right.
There should be no debate on those two facts no matter what *side* of other political debates you are on.
Full stop.

Hope he talks anyway if there is anything else to add about financing, other actors,etc., though from what is public so far, I doubt it.
 
2013-04-25 12:51:54 PM

vygramul: thornhill: I get that the Feds were worried that there might be a ticking bomb somewhere, but if you've watched just one episode of Law & Order, then you know that not mirandizing Dzhokhar from the start is going turn the whole thing into a legal train wreck. It's also seems hard to even argue that there could have even been a ticking time bomb scenario given that when he was arrested his whereabouts for the last 24 hours had been mostly accounted for, and that for the better part of the day he was hunkered in boat bleeding. And on top of that, the police ended the lockdown.

Then you didn't pay attention to Law & Order, because it was only a train-wreck because the crucial evidence was gathered during illegal interrogation in that show, and even then, they sometimes found more evidence and won anyway. Plus, they never had a public safety exception issue.

/Only a TV show
//Still surprisingly good about the law


The show always and obviously greatly compressed all of the procedure and appeals. They're going to use the myranda issue to drag this out for years.
 
2013-04-25 12:52:40 PM

vygramul: I hope that, if you're the victim of a crime, the witnesses don't think like that.


Regardless, the smart move is always to say nothing.  I guess some cold comfort can be derived that you were wronged by one of the "more intelligent" criminals and not some D-list street thug.
 
2013-04-25 12:52:51 PM

Sin_City_Superhero: Dimensio: Sin_City_Superhero: Here's what I don't understand...When the cops decided not to Mirandize him does that mean that he doesn't have Miranda rights (right to remain silent, right to have an attorney present during questioning, etc.), or just that they don't tell him about his rights?

The "Miranda rights" are rights enumerated and protected by the United States Constitution. They are applicable regardless of whether a criminal suspect is aware of them.

Many professional pundits who have opposed "Mirandizing" Mr. Tsarnaev have asserted that he will have no right to remain silent unless told that he does; those professional pundits are either lying, fundamentally ignorant of Constitutional law or both.

So if they were questioning him without Mirandizing him, and he said "I'd like a lawyer, now" they'd have to stop the interrogation, or else everything he said AFTER that point would be inadmissable, but anything said prior to his request would still be admissable, correct?


No.
 
2013-04-25 12:53:52 PM

Sin_City_Superhero: Dimensio: Sin_City_Superhero: Here's what I don't understand...When the cops decided not to Mirandize him does that mean that he doesn't have Miranda rights (right to remain silent, right to have an attorney present during questioning, etc.), or just that they don't tell him about his rights?

The "Miranda rights" are rights enumerated and protected by the United States Constitution. They are applicable regardless of whether a criminal suspect is aware of them.

Many professional pundits who have opposed "Mirandizing" Mr. Tsarnaev have asserted that he will have no right to remain silent unless told that he does; those professional pundits are either lying, fundamentally ignorant of Constitutional law or both.

So if they were questioning him without Mirandizing him, and he said "I'd like a lawyer, now" they'd have to stop the interrogation, or else everything he said AFTER that point would be inadmissable, but anything said prior to his request would still be admissable, correct?


Maybe.  A good defense lawyer might be able to argue somehow -- I dunno how, I'm not a lawyer -- that imminent danger was NOT present and therefore they should have Mirandized him.
 
2013-04-25 12:54:28 PM

thornhill: They're going to use the myranda issue to drag this out for years.


ONLY if there's evidence gathered from him between his apprehension and their Mirandizing him that is used at trial. Even then, the judge might be swayed by a NY v Quarles argument and ignore it. If there isn't such evidence, there won't even be an avenue for appeal for it.
 
2013-04-25 12:54:44 PM

MyRandomName: olddinosaur: If he wasn't mirandized before, anything he said may not be admissable.

Cops f*cked up on that one, evidence was already very solid.

There is a 48 hour exceptiin to miranda when public safety is a concern. This bombing fell under those regilations. The DoJ chose to end that exception at 16 hours with the FBI claiming they were getting good information of possible connectiona to others. The brothers were in welfare yet funded gun purchases, 6 month trip to Russia, new car, etc.

A conspiracy theorist would state the DoJ pushed to end the exception for political reasons in pushing the lone wolves theory.


wrong, wrong, wrong andddddddddddddd WRONG.
 
2013-04-25 12:55:15 PM

Mercutio74: vygramul: I hope that, if you're the victim of a crime, the witnesses don't think like that.

Regardless, the smart move is always to say nothing.


True dat. Talking to the cops will NOT help you. Period. And it may cause great harm to you. There is NO UPSIDE to talking to the police, and there is a potentially huge downside. Cops are NOT your friends. Don't talk to them.
 
2013-04-25 12:55:17 PM

olddinosaur: If he wasn't mirandized before, anything he said may not be admissable.

Cops f*cked up on that one, evidence was already very solid.


They didn't need this testimony for a conviction; they needed it to ensure there were no more bombs or conspirators. They've got this kid dead to rights without him saying a word.
 
2013-04-25 12:56:58 PM
wow, so many legal experts on Fark.

Oh well, I look forward to the movie.
 
2013-04-25 12:57:00 PM
With this article now in mind, do the ACLU members in the thread now understand why it was important for them to not Mirandize the kid the moment he woke up?
 
2013-04-25 12:57:45 PM

elchupacabra: Sin_City_Superhero: Dimensio: Sin_City_Superhero: Here's what I don't understand...When the cops decided not to Mirandize him does that mean that he doesn't have Miranda rights (right to remain silent, right to have an attorney present during questioning, etc.), or just that they don't tell him about his rights?

The "Miranda rights" are rights enumerated and protected by the United States Constitution. They are applicable regardless of whether a criminal suspect is aware of them.

Many professional pundits who have opposed "Mirandizing" Mr. Tsarnaev have asserted that he will have no right to remain silent unless told that he does; those professional pundits are either lying, fundamentally ignorant of Constitutional law or both.

So if they were questioning him without Mirandizing him, and he said "I'd like a lawyer, now" they'd have to stop the interrogation, or else everything he said AFTER that point would be inadmissable, but anything said prior to his request would still be admissable, correct?

Maybe.  A good defense lawyer might be able to argue somehow -- I dunno how, I'm not a lawyer -- that imminent danger was NOT present and therefore they should have Mirandized him.


Anything prior to his request would remain inadmissible as well, unless covered by the public safety exception. For example, if he told them why he did it, they couldn't present it as his motive, because that's not covered by the public safety exception, so it would not be admissible unless he subsequently said so after getting a lawyer.
 
2013-04-25 12:58:24 PM

Sin_City_Superhero: So if they were questioning him without Mirandizing him, and he said "I'd like a lawyer, now" they'd have to stop the interrogation, or else everything he said AFTER that point would be inadmissable, but anything said prior to his request would still be admissable, correct?

vygramul: No.

Could you kindly elaborate, please. Which part did I get wrong, and can you please explain why it's wrong?

 
2013-04-25 12:58:54 PM

Sin_City_Superhero: Mercutio74: vygramul: I hope that, if you're the victim of a crime, the witnesses don't think like that.

Regardless, the smart move is always to say nothing.

True dat. Talking to the cops will NOT help you. Period. And it may cause great harm to you. There is NO UPSIDE to talking to the police, and there is a potentially huge downside. Cops are NOT your friends. Don't talk to them.


I take it in irony, that you make such a comment, and yet, have selected your forum name in such a fashion.
 
2013-04-25 01:00:14 PM

Sin_City_Superhero: Mercutio74: vygramul: I hope that, if you're the victim of a crime, the witnesses don't think like that.

Regardless, the smart move is always to say nothing.

True dat. Talking to the cops will NOT help you. Period. And it may cause great harm to you. There is NO UPSIDE to talking to the police, and there is a potentially huge downside. Cops are NOT your friends. Don't talk to them.


Right. If a cop asks you if you know where a particular guy lives who has been burglarizing homes in your neighborhood, there's absolutely no upside to telling them if you know. No upside at all.
 
Displayed 50 of 173 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