Miranda...

[KSG_Standard]

Supreme Court eases Miranda enforcement - latimes.com

Supreme Court backs off strict enforcement of Miranda rights

Once the suspect has been informed of his rights, he has the duty to invoke them, justices say. The decision reinstates a murder conviction based mostly on a suspect's one-word answer to police.

Reporting from Washington —
The Supreme Court retreated from strict enforcement of the famous Miranda decision on Tuesday, ruling that a crime suspect's words could be used against him if he failed to clearly invoke his rights clearly and, instead, answered a single question after nearly three hours of interrogation.

In the past, the court has said the "burden rests on the government" to show that a crime suspect has "knowingly and intelligently waived" his rights.

But in a 5-4 decision Tuesday, the court said the suspect had the duty to invoke his rights. If he failed to do so, his later words can be used to convict him, the justices said.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote that police were "not required to obtain a waiver" of the suspect's "right to remain silent before interrogating him."

In this case, Michigan police had informed the suspect, Van Thompkins, of his rights, including the right to remain silent. Thompkins said he understood, but he did not tell the officer he wanted to stop the questioning or speak to a lawyer.

But he sat in a chair and said nothing for about two hours and 45 minutes. At that point, the officer asked, "Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?"

"Yes," Thompson said and looked away. He refused to sign a confession or speak further, but he was convicted of first-degree murder, based largely on his one-word reply.

The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Thompkins' conviction on the grounds that the use of the incriminating answer violated his right against self-incrimination under the Miranda decision.

The Supreme Court reversed that ruling and reinstated the conviction. "A suspect who has received and understood the Miranda warnings and has not invoked his Miranda rights waives the right to remain silent by making an uncoerced statement to the police," Kennedy said. He was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

Speaking for the dissenters, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the ruling "marks a substantial retreat from the protections against compelled self-incrimination that Miranda v. Arizona has long provided." She said the conviction should be overturned because the prosecution had not "carried its burden to show that he waived his right to remain silent."

Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer joined her dissent.

The majority ruling is in line with the position taken by the Obama administration and Supreme Court nominee U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan. In December, she filed a brief on the side of Michigan prosecutors and argued that "the government need not prove that a suspect expressly waived his rights."

She said that "if a suspect knows and understands his Miranda rights," anything he says can be used against him in court.

[email protected]

I think this is a good thing. I've never understood why the police had to work so hard to make sure that people knew and took advantage of their own rights. People should be responsible for knowing the US Constitution and for standing up for their own rights.

 

[Dan]

I knew a girl named Miranda once, but she nevered talked about her rights.

 

[Caleb]

Absolutely awesome. An actual sensible decision.

 

[MineGoesTo11]

Don't say a word until you get representation, whether you are guilty of anything or not.

 

[Caleb]

If people don't know their Miranda rights in this day and age, they are completely clueless.

 

[geochem1st]

If people don't know their Miranda rights in this day and age, they are completely clueless.

.. and thats the whole point. There are completely clueless people around, those with lower IQ's, or lack of a decent education, leanring disabilities, or difficulty with language that are US Citizens, that can and will be taken advantage of. Thus the protection that the Miranda law gives.

 

[KSG_Standard]

.. and thats the whole point. There are completely clueless people around, those with lower IQ's, or lack of a decent education, leanring disabilities, or difficulty with language that are US Citizens, that can and will be taken advantage of. Thus the protection that the Miranda law gives.

Seems like that's for a judge to work out. Is the accused stupid because of a low IQ, a learning disability or some other natural reason...or is the accused IGNORANT because they chose not to learn their rights due to laziness or disregard for their own education. The previous Miranda ruling provided a place for criminals to hide. Lesson for the kiddies, pay attention in school, don't huff, don't drink and stay away from the crack.

 

[Caleb]

I think the protection originally intended is still there. The guy was advised, on tape, he waived, and then he gave himself up. Justice worked out without the violation of anyone's rights.

 

[Hamtone]

Don't say a word until you get representation, whether you are guilty of anything or not.

+100000000000000

I have lots of police friends and most of the time they pic someone up they dont arrest them just so they can get them to talk about anything else going on.

But everyone should know, dont say anything except attorney. There isnt anything to talk about and if they have you in a corner guilty or not they are going to get you to say something stupid...Just stfu

First rule is, stay the hell out of trouble and not have to worry about it. Second rule stfu

 

[TeleDog]

Supreme Court eases Miranda enforcement - latimes.com

Supreme Court backs off strict enforcement of Miranda rights



I think this is a good thing. I've never understood why the police had to work so hard to make sure that people knew and took advantage of their own rights. People should be responsible for knowing the US Constitution and for standing up for their own rights.

I agree!

But don't miss the point! The Constitution only discards "coerced" statements, I really don't see how a statement made in ignorance of stuff you should know is somehow seen as "coerced" in the absence of some threat, violence or force....

Coerce: to persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats.

 

[BillB1960]

Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law nor should it be a reason to overturn a conviction. Personally I see no reason for the police to have to recite the Miranda warning at all...

 

[MineGoesTo11]

Don't talk. Ever. Get a lawyer.

 

[Deus Vult]

the cops are not your friends. even when they pull you over for a traffic violation and ask "where are you headed?"...you do not have to answer them. license and registration. that's it. the cops are always looking for probable cause. always.

 

[weirdotis]

the cops are not your friends. even when they pull you over for a traffic violation and ask "where are you headed?"...you do not have to answer them. license and registration. that's it. the cops are always looking for probable cause. always.

What's your problem? Maybe they ask where you are going because they genuinely care and want to make sure your house isn't burning down, etc.

 

[mrpesca]

What's your problem? Maybe they ask where you are going because they genuinely care and want to make sure your house isn't burning down, etc.

There, fixed that for you...

 

[weirdotis]

 

[River]

Don't talk. Ever. Get a lawyer.

+1. Even if you've just been hit by an Elk. Feign laryngitis if you have to. STFU.

 

[Dan]

+1. Even if you've just been hit by an Elk. Feign laryngitis if you have to. STFU.

But what if the elk was driving?

 

[River]

But what if the elk was driving?

He might as well have been. I didn't know they could fly, either.

(He really did hit me - that's not a typo.)

 

[Chupy]

I've never had my miranda rights read to me after being tied up...