normiss 897 #26 December 1, 2009 Understood, no worries. My apologies... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DiverMike 5 #27 December 1, 2009 I'll play this game and give the easy half of the answer: .vs. US June 26, 2000 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So tell me, what case reaffirmed Miranda? Andy - stay out -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- vs. . For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #28 December 2, 2009 QuoteGiven that you typically dislike doing research for others, I was simply returning the consideration. I do more research than most anyone here. QuoteIt matters not which case reaffirmed Miranda as that's not the topic at hand. Right, it just shows your limted knowledge on the topic or law in general and now you're getting nasty to cover your tracks. QuoteSimply being arrested does not require a suspect to be read their Miranda rights. Where did I say it did? You're confused. All that being Mirandized does is determine if the statemenst are coming in. - No Miranda, but no coercion = no statements unless D testifies. - No Miranda and coercion = no statements regardless. If you think you're smarter than a practicing lawyer who is a prosecutor and defense attorney (of course in jurisdictions where he's not prosecuting) then I will take that as expected response. The hillarity is that you think I call myself the expert of all thimgs, your legal knowledge is so minimal that you didn't even know that Dickerson v US was the case that tested Miranda, it was around 2000 and Dickerson was a bank robber; Miranda was upheld as stare decisis. Look it up, I don't want to educate you anymore. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #29 December 2, 2009 Quote Quote So tell me, what case reaffirmed Miranda? Andy - stay out vs. . Thx for not busting it out, I knew you knew. And we know Normiss didn't know. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #30 December 2, 2009 QuoteQuoteAs many times as I re-read your comments it still leads me to believe you did imply both. Well, I didn't, and I'm not going to spend 10-15 minutes typing out a longer response to prove it. Laypeople watch people's court and act like jailhouse lawyers. Normiss knows that Miranda isn't necessary to be read upon arrest. It only has to be read and adhered to by law enforcement if they want statements to come in. A def has no inherent right to be Mirandized, but they do have a right to counsel and if that is violated then the statements don't come in. Obviously legal folks know this, laypeople get that .02 of knowledge and run around with it, waving it frantically. As a lawyer that you are, I don;t know what kind of law you practice, but I'm sure it's frustrating when clients are like this. Often your biggest opponent is your client; is that about right? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #31 December 2, 2009 Quote I'll play this game and give the easy half of the answer: .vs. US June 26, 2000 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So tell me, what case reaffirmed Miranda? Andy - stay out -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- vs. . Yep, that sounds like the date. I was in unive at teh time, so it was cool going thru it. I was taking poli-sci during Clinton's impeachment, so I lucked out there too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #32 December 2, 2009 Quote Quote Given that you typically dislike doing research for others, I was simply returning the consideration. I do more research than most anyone here. Quote It matters not which case reaffirmed Miranda as that's not the topic at hand. Right, it just shows your limted knowledge on the topic or law in general and now you're getting nasty to cover your tracks. Quote Simply being arrested does not require a suspect to be read their Miranda rights. Where did I say it did? You're confused. All that being Mirandized does is determine if the statemenst are coming in. - No Miranda, but no coercion = no statements unless D testifies. - No Miranda and coercion = no statements regardless. If you think you're smarter than a practicing lawyer who is a prosecutor and defense attorney (of course in jurisdictions where he's not prosecuting) then I will take that as expected response. The hillarity is that you think I call myself the expert of all thimgs, your legal knowledge is so minimal that you didn't even know that Dickerson v US was the case that tested Miranda, it was around 2000 and Dickerson was a bank robber; Miranda was upheld as stare decisis. Look it up, I don't want to educate you anymore. Not interested in further showing us the ways of Miranda and that I'm wrong about the degrees of Miranda, Normiss? And you chide me and claim I said I'm an expert, when I have never called myself a legal expert, drop this issue and run? Have a good one . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 897 #33 December 2, 2009 not running, just tired of arguing on a key technical difference that you miss, no matter what the case that established nor certified Miranda. It's simply not required to read Miranda rights when arrested, that's all I was trying to say. Nor is it required for a military force on foreign soil to read them to a non-citizen when they are detained. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #34 December 2, 2009 QuoteIt's simply not required to read Miranda rights when arrested, that's all I was trying to say. True enough. Of course, if the rights are not read, any post-arrest statement the defendant might make will be inadmissible at trial. But other than that, no, there are usually no further consequences. Unless, of course, a confession is the linchpin of the prosecution's case. Then ... ooops! Quote Nor is it required for a military force on foreign soil to read them to a non-citizen when they are detained. ... that is, unless the detainee is charged with a crime under US law, is tried in a US court, and the prosecution seeks to admit the detainee's statement into evidence at trial. By the way, most of the provisions of the Constitution, especially those having to do with criminal law, are completely neutral re: citizenship; in other words, a non-citizen charged with a crime under US law has no fewer US constitutional rights than a US citizen would. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 897 #35 December 2, 2009 Correct from my understanding as well good sir. Although it appears the technicality of one's own admission without being "interviewed" would also be admissible without Miranda. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #36 December 2, 2009 QuoteCorrect from my understanding as well good sir. Although it appears the technicality of one's own admission without being "interviewed" would also be admissible without Miranda. Sometimes; it's a big grey area in US criminal caselaw. It often (not always) hinges upon defining whether the defendant was or was not "under arrest" at the time of the interview. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #37 December 2, 2009 QuoteQuoteCorrect from my understanding as well good sir. Although it appears the technicality of one's own admission without being "interviewed" would also be admissible without Miranda. Sometimes; it's a big grey area in US criminal caselaw. It often (not always) hinges upon defining whether the defendant was or was not "under arrest" at the time of the interview. "Under Arrest" isn't really necessary, simply being detained may require a Miranda warning. It also hinges upon whether or not the statements were as a result of an interview/interrogation or spontaneous, unprompted admissions by the arrestee. Like you said. BIG grey area."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1888 0 #38 December 2, 2009 MILITARY MIRANDA WARNING You have the right to remain silent Any move you make will give me an excuse to beat the shit out of you. You have the right to an attorney after I beat the shit out of you. If you cannot afford an attorney I will beat the shit out of you. Do you understand these rights asshole. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #40 December 3, 2009 QuoteUnder Arrest" isn't really necessary, simply being detained may require a Miranda warning. Exactly - would a reasonable person fell that they are detained at a given point? If yes, then Miranda must be read or statements don't come in unless D testifies. Miranda violations don't give permission for the D to lie, they just ommit statements unless D testifies to the contrary of said illegally obtained statements. Coerced statements cannot come in, even if D lies in testimony. QuoteIt also hinges upon whether or not the statements were as a result of an interview/interrogation or spontaneous, unprompted admissions by the arrestee. And then there's - inevitable discovery - public safety - good faith to consider as well in relation to statements and the fruit they bear. It really is complex. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #41 December 3, 2009 QuoteMILITARY MIRANDA WARNING You have the right to remain silent Any move you make will give me an excuse to beat the shit out of you. You have the right to an attorney after I beat the shit out of you. If you cannot afford an attorney I will beat the shit out of you. Do you understand these rights asshole. Basically, ironic that the people who swear to defend the COnstitution don't have basic US Const rts themselves. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tuna-Salad 0 #42 December 3, 2009 Sort of off subject here but I was wondering something that maybe one of you could answer. I've seen people detained that were not read their rights until being notified that they were charged with a crime. If you "unknowingly" say something that is damaging to your case before rights are read... would it still hold up in court? Or does that boil down to how good of a lawyer you can afford? Obviously in the US you can buy your way out of trouble..Millions of my potential children died on your daughters' face last night. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #43 December 3, 2009 QuoteIf you "unknowingly" say something that is damaging to your case before rights are read... would it still hold up in court? Technically, the general rule is that it should not be admissible at trial. There may be a factual battle in court about when he was read his rights, and//or whether he simply blurted out the statement, as opposed to in response to police questioning. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 897 #44 December 3, 2009 Simply detained or arrested - no Miranda. (If the cops think they have a strong case or that you won't talk, they very well may take you straight to the pokie with no questioning at all.) Questioned - Miranda. Admitting or blurting shit out - insanity. Talking to the cops when in trouble - quite possibly the biggest mistake an American citizen could ever make. NEVER TALK TO COPS when in trouble. NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER Hire the best, non advertising, non recommended by a bondsmen attorney you could possibly afford. We have the best legal system you can buy on the planet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
