Index  •  FAQ  •  Search  

It is currently Fri Apr 19, 2024 3:48 pm

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 3 posts ] 
 SCOTUS: Suspects can be interrogated without lawyer 
Author Message
 Post subject: SCOTUS: Suspects can be interrogated without lawyer
PostPosted: Wed May 27, 2009 2:48 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:54 am
Posts: 5270
Location: Minneapolis
It's OK though, because we know this will only happen to criminals and bad guys.

And Obama upholds yet another Bush policy. O-same-a strikes again!

Quote:
Court: Suspects can be interrogated without lawyer

By JESSE J. HOLLAND – 1 day ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday overturned a long-standing ruling that stopped police from initiating questions unless a defendant's lawyer was present, a move that will make it easier for prosecutors to interrogate suspects.

The high court, in a 5-4 ruling, overturned the 1986 Michigan v. Jackson ruling, which said police may not initiate questioning of a defendant who has a lawyer or has asked for one unless the attorney is present. The Michigan ruling applied even to defendants who agreed to talk to the authorities without their lawyers.

The court's conservatives overturned that opinion, with Justice Antonin Scalia saying "it was poorly reasoned."

Under the Jackson opinion, police could not even ask a defendant who had been appointed a lawyer if he wanted to talk, Scalia said.

"It would be completely unjustified to presume that a defendant's consent to police-initiated interrogation was involuntary or coerced simply because he had previously been appointed a lawyer," Scalia said in the court's opinion.

Scalia, who read the opinion from the bench, said the decision will have "minimal" effects on criminal defendants because of the protections the court has provided in other decisions. "The considerable adverse effect of this rule upon society's ability to solve crimes and bring criminals to justice far outweighs its capacity to prevent a genuinely coerced agreement to speak without counsel present," Scalia said.

The Michigan v. Jackson opinion was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the only current justice who was on the court at the time. He and Justices David Souter, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented from the ruling, and in an unusual move Stevens read his dissent aloud from the bench. It was the first time this term a justice had read a dissent aloud.

"The police interrogation in this case clearly violated petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to counsel," Stevens said. Overruling the Jackson case, he said, "can only diminish the public's confidence in the reliability and fairness of our system of justice."

The Obama administration had asked the court to overturn Michigan v. Jackson, disappointing civil rights and civil liberties groups that expected President Barack Obama to reverse the policies of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush.

The Justice Department, in a brief signed by Solicitor General Elena Kagan, said the 1986 decision "serves no real purpose" and offers only "meager benefits." The government said defendants who don't wish to talk to police don't have to and that officers must respect that decision. But it said there is no reason a defendant who wants to should not be able to respond to officers' questions.

Eleven states also echoed the administration's call to overrule the 1986 case.

The decision comes in the case of Jesse Jay Montejo, who was found guilty in 2005 of the shooting death of Louis Ferrari in the victim's home on Sept. 5, 2002.

Montejo was appointed a public defender at his Sept. 10, 2002 hearing, but never indicated that he wanted the lawyer's help. Montejo then went with police detectives to help them look for the murder weapon. While in the car, Montejo wrote a letter to Ferrari's widow incriminating himself.

When they returned to the prison, a public defender was waiting for Montejo, irate that his client had been questioned in his absence. Police used the letter against Montejo at trial, and he was convicted and sentenced to death. He appealed, but the Louisiana Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence.

The Supreme Court sent the case back for a determination of whether any of Montejo's other court-provided protections, like his Miranda rights, were violated.

The case is Montejo v. Louisiana, 07-1529.

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

_________________
I am defending myself... in favor of that!


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 27, 2009 3:04 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:40 pm
Posts: 2264
Location: Eden Prairie
Everybody, on your feet, and repeat after me:

"I will not say anything without my attorney present, and I do not consent to any search."

Again:

"I will not say anything without my attorney present, and I do not consent to any search."

Again.

And again.

And again.

-Mark


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 28, 2009 9:48 am 
Poet Laureate
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 11:36 am
Posts: 760
Location: Hutchinson, MN
"Miranda" rights have always made me laugh, and court rulings like this and the 1986 one just make me shake my head.

How about you take the time to read the whole, excrutiating :roll: list of the Bill of Rights, and then, God forbid, memorize them :shock: so that you can claim them when you need them?
If doing that is too much to ask, then I don't care if those people are ever "read their Miranda rights" or "questioned by the police".



:idea:



Do what mrokern said. 8)

_________________
It's not always easy these days to tell which of our two major political parties is the Stupid Party and which is the Evil Party...
But it remains true that from time to time they collaborate on something that's both stupid and evil and call it bipartisanship. -Thomas E. Woods Jr.


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 3 posts ] 

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours


 Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 66 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


 
Index  |  FAQ  |  Search

phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group