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.

(WSMV Nashville)   You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law, even if you're high on mushrooms and babbling like a lunatic   (wsmv.com) divider line 14
    More: Obvious, Commercial Appeal, Rutherford County, hallucinogenic mushrooms, Randy Travis, nude swimming, sobriety checkpoint, Sumner County, courts  
•       •       •

3493 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Jul 2013 at 1:38 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



14 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-07-09 01:41:00 PM
The suspect has confessed to a genocide of leprechauns. Arraign him.
 
2013-07-09 01:42:40 PM
That doesn't seem very sporting.
 
2013-07-09 01:43:04 PM
But he'd also "done" weed as well.
 
2013-07-09 01:45:48 PM
 
2013-07-09 01:46:54 PM
not saying shrooms but...
 
2013-07-09 01:50:55 PM
It makes sense to allow it to be admissible, otherwise everyone could just claim they didn't mean to confess because they got high.
 
2013-07-09 01:54:12 PM
Of course it was memphis.

If it had been in East TN it'd have been meth.
 
2013-07-09 02:07:05 PM

davidphogan: It makes sense to allow it to be admissible, otherwise everyone could just claim they didn't mean to confess because they got high.


Could a person truly understand their right to remain silent when in that mental state? If that doesn't matter, then why bother reading them their rights at all? Can't we just say that we have all seen enough police drama TV shows to know the Miranda rights anyway?
 
2013-07-09 02:21:59 PM

Salmon: But he'd also "done" weed as well.


I'm confused. How does one "do" weed? Do you have to bake it into a pie and wait for it to cool most of the way and just, ya know, go for it?
 
2013-07-09 02:30:34 PM
Temporary insanity defense?
 
2013-07-09 02:36:39 PM
Voluntary intoxication is almost never a defense.  Now if he could somehow prove that the intoxication was involuntary, then he might have something.
 
2013-07-09 04:00:52 PM

Sasquach: davidphogan: It makes sense to allow it to be admissible, otherwise everyone could just claim they didn't mean to confess because they got high.

Could a person truly understand their right to remain silent when in that mental state? If that doesn't matter, then why bother reading them their rights at all? Can't we just say that we have all seen enough police drama TV shows to know the Miranda rights anyway?


Well, presumably this'd be discussed during the pretrial motions phase - the lawyers would argue over what statements made are admissible, and whether the defense is allowed to counter with the accused's mental state as a defense. Hopefully, a defense attorney would (still be allowed to) introduce evidence that his client's statements at that time were likely less than truthful due to his mental state.

// how often does an attorney's argument rest on the jury NOT believing their client?
// probably not a rarity, but how common?
 
2013-07-09 04:36:19 PM

Anderson's Pooper: Voluntary intoxication is almost never a defense.  Now if he could somehow prove that the intoxication was involuntary, then he might have something.


The source of the intoxication is wholly irrelevant. Voluntary or not, intoxication can be a valid reason to disqualify statements made to the police during questioning. Any waiver of rights must be made knowingly and intelligently. If the suspect is intoxicated or under the influence of drugs to the point that he cannot understand his constitutional rights, the waiver is void.

Intoxication to any lesser degree makes the "I didn't understand" much harder to get away with. Intoxication is a factor that's considered when deciding if a waiver was knowing and intelligent. Other factors include age, experience, education, background, and intelligence, and/or prior arrests/Mirandizations.

But the single biggest factor when it comes to claims of "I was too drunk to understand" is how the suspect responds when the officer asks "Do you understand these rights?" and how he responds to the subsequent questions. If his answers are responsive and coherent, it is a pretty clear demonstration (in the eyes of the court, at least) that he understood the officers' questions which, in turn, indicates he also understood the Miranda warning.

tl;dr: If you are drunk to the point of incoherence, your statements will probably be inadmissible. Otherwise you are almost certainly screwed.
 
2013-07-09 05:26:44 PM
Police said they saw no signs that Callicutt was impaired.

Sounds legit.  Highly trained officers can tell if you're impaired or not just by looking at you, most times.  They can tell if you had six beers and they can smell the marijuana, even if that party was six months ago.

It's uncanny.
 
Displayed 14 of 14 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report