J.Gleason
Banned
imported post
DO NOT TALK TO POLICE!!!!!!!!!
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/06/01/supreme-court-narrows-requirements-for-miranda-rights-warning/
Supreme Court Narrows Requirements for Miranda Rights Warning 20 hours ago
Andrew Cohen Columnisthttp://www.politicsdaily.com/andrew-cohen/
Voting along ideological lines, a divided Supreme Court Monday slightly narrowed the scope of the so-called Miranda warning, ruling in a 5-4 case out of that a suspect must affirmatively and unambiguously invoke his right to remain silent in order to preclude prosecutors from later using any statements he may make at the time. "There is good reason to require an accused who wants to invoke his or her right to remain silent to do so unambiguously," Justice Anthony Kennedy declared in what probably constitutes the understatement of the day. The case came about as a result of the questioning of an Ohio man named Van Chester Thompkins, who was picked up in 2000 on suspicion of murder and attempted murder. Thompkins was properly read his rights and said that he understood them - but he neither expressly waived his right to remain silent or invoked his privilege against self-incrimination. Nearly three hours later, after a series of short, clipped answers, Thompkins, when asked if he prayed to God for forgiveness for "shooting the boy down," responded "yes." It was this incriminating answer that prosecutors later sought to introduce at the trial - a trial which resulted in Thompson's conviction.
The majority's decision, authored by Justice Kennedy and endorsed by his four conservative colleagues, limits the contours of the Court's "implied waiver" doctrine and is likely to encourage law enforcement officials to continue questioning suspects even where there may be a question about whether that suspect's right to remain silent has been invoked. "Thompkins did not say that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk to police," Justice Kennedy said. "Had he made either of these simple, unambiguous statements, he would have invoked his 'right to cut off questioning.' Here he did neither, so he did not invoke his right to remain silent." The ruling gives the benefit of the doubt of ambiguity during questioning to the police and to prosecutors and not to the defendant, a point that troubled Justice Sonia Sotomayor and the Court's liberal wing. Quite active on this point during oral argument in March, she issued a sharp dissent on Tuesday. "Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent - which counter-intuitively, requires them to speak," she said. "At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so. Those results, in my view, find no basis in Miranda or our subsequent cases and are inconsistent with the fair-trial principles on which those precedents are grounded." Filed Under:Crime, Law, Supreme Court
DO NOT TALK TO POLICE!!!!!!!!!
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/06/01/supreme-court-narrows-requirements-for-miranda-rights-warning/
Supreme Court Narrows Requirements for Miranda Rights Warning 20 hours ago
Andrew Cohen Columnisthttp://www.politicsdaily.com/andrew-cohen/Voting along ideological lines, a divided Supreme Court Monday slightly narrowed the scope of the so-called Miranda warning, ruling in a 5-4 case out of that a suspect must affirmatively and unambiguously invoke his right to remain silent in order to preclude prosecutors from later using any statements he may make at the time. "There is good reason to require an accused who wants to invoke his or her right to remain silent to do so unambiguously," Justice Anthony Kennedy declared in what probably constitutes the understatement of the day. The case came about as a result of the questioning of an Ohio man named Van Chester Thompkins, who was picked up in 2000 on suspicion of murder and attempted murder. Thompkins was properly read his rights and said that he understood them - but he neither expressly waived his right to remain silent or invoked his privilege against self-incrimination. Nearly three hours later, after a series of short, clipped answers, Thompkins, when asked if he prayed to God for forgiveness for "shooting the boy down," responded "yes." It was this incriminating answer that prosecutors later sought to introduce at the trial - a trial which resulted in Thompson's conviction.
