Interesting Miranda Ruling from Supreme Court

[Pangloss]

Police: "Do you understand your rights as they have been described to you?"

Suspect: "Yes"

Police: "Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?"

Suspect: "Yes"

 

The suspect said nothing further, but the jury convicted him, largely on that one-word confession. A court of appeals overturned the case because the police had not obtained a Miranda waiver, a common practice that notes the suspect's comprehension of his or her rights on paper, but neither party disputed the fact that the suspect had indicated that he understood his rights.

 

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court reinstated the conviction, and stated that a written waiver is not required.

 

I think that may well be the correct decision in this case, but there is some cause for concern in not requiring police to obtain a written waiver, because it becomes a matter of their word versus the suspect's word that they understood their rights. Note Justice Sotomayor, in her first written decision, representing the 4-vote dissent:

 

... 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."

 

But I think it's worth noting that this decision revolves around the agreed-upon attribute that the suspect did understand his rights. If another case came along in which a suspect did not understand his rights, then this decision does not preclude them being found to have had their Miranda rights violated even though no written waiver was obtained.

 

In other words, a suspect can say "yes I understand my rights", but if police don't get that in writing or on video tape (or something), then the suspect can still change his mind later and win -- that opportunity hasn't been lost by this decision.

 

It's also worth noting that President Obama's nominee, Elena Kagan, apparently would likely have come down with the MAJORITY on this case, making the vote 6-3 in favor (Stevens voted with the minority).

 

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."

 

Of course as with earlier decisions some will say that she's just representing the opinion of her employer here, and that may indeed be the case, but it's the same employer that put her up for the job, and presumably they put her up for the job because they agree with her political views. But you can never really say in advance how a justice will vote, of course, and they often surprise their nominating parties.

[jackson33]

For what it's worth, I'll disagree; The accused, regardless of 'street smarts' will be at the mercy of all kinds of trickery to start talking. Diversionary tactics are already too common and for Miranda to have any meaning/teeth, the intentions for it was to allow a meaningful representation for the accused. Remember the accused is presumed guilty of nothing....

[swansont]

Police: "Do you understand your rights as they have been described to you?"

Suspect: "Yes"

Police: "Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?"

Suspect: "Yes"

 

One thing not mentioned here is that was about three hours of interrogation between the first exchange and the second.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/01/AR2010060101378.html

 

At first I thought this wasn't a big deal, but the details are more chilling. An apparent implication is that the cops don't have to tell you that you can make the interrogation stop by saying "I'm not talking to you." People aren't generally aware of what their rights are, which is one reason for Miranda rights being read to them, and I don't think they should have to guess at what the magic phrase is to make an interrogation stop when they don't know that it's in their power to do so.

[King, North TX]

Most citizens are COMPLETELY UNAWARE of their rights, this is the problem.

 

Lurk here (http://forums.officer.com/forums/index.php) for a while, and you'll start to understand how Law Enforcement will bend ever rule into leading you to slip up, and indeed give up your rights.

 

NEVER, EVER give any law enforcement official to search you, your car, or your home. NEVER! AND say 'out loud', "I'd like to have a lawyer present before we begin questioning."

[Mr Skeptic]

One thing not mentioned here is that was about three hours of interrogation between the first exchange and the second.

 

I hear some people can be gotten to admit almost anything given enough interrogation. Also, the police can lie all they like when they interrogate you. They can pretend they have an airtight case against you and then tell you how you will be so much better off if you just confess.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/01/AR2010060101378.html

 

At first I thought this wasn't a big deal, but the details are more chilling. An apparent implication is that the cops don't have to tell you that you can make the interrogation stop by saying "I'm not talking to you." People aren't generally aware of what their rights are, which is one reason for Miranda rights being read to them, and I don't think they should have to guess at what the magic phrase is to make an interrogation stop when they don't know that it's in their power to do so.

 

Hm, I didn't know that aspect either. I just knew I don't have to tell them anything. Seems to me this is a case of following the letter of the law (maybe) and going 180° against the spirit.

[insane_alien]

Most citizens are COMPLETELY UNAWARE of their rights, this is the problem.

 

Lurk here (http://forums.officer.com/forums/index.php) for a while, and you'll start to understand how Law Enforcement will bend ever rule into leading you to slip up, and indeed give up your rights.

 

NEVER, EVER give any law enforcement official to search you, your car, or your home. NEVER! AND say 'out loud', "I'd like to have a lawyer present before we begin questioning."

 

surely it is also your right to voluntarily waive those rights.

 

put simply, if you feel the situation could be quickly resolved by allowing a police officer to perform a search of your car then you are allowed to do that.

 

it is also your right to complicate matters by kicking up a stink as well.

 

personally, i'd have no problem with a police officer searching my person or car or house as long as they have what i'd consider a reasonable reason for it. i'm not too fussed and i don't have anything to hide.

[swansont]

surely it is also your right to voluntarily waive those rights.

 

It's hard to make that decision if you don't know you have a particular right, and harder still if you are given the impression that you don't have the right, or power — in this case, the power to make the interrogation stop.

 

 

put simply, if you feel the situation could be quickly resolved by allowing a police officer to perform a search of your car then you are allowed to do that.

 

But there are situations where what you feel does not reflect reality. You might be breaking the law in a way you do not know

 

Why even the innocent shouldn't talk to the police:

http://www.tuccille.com/blog/2008/07/eight-reasons-even-innocent-shouldnt.html

[Pangloss]

Swansont, do you agree that if a suspect has signed a statement saying that he understands his rights, and then forgets his rights and accidentally confesses through the skilled technique of a lawful interrogator, that this is a valid confession?

[Mr Skeptic]

Swansont, do you agree that if a suspect has signed a statement saying that he understands his rights, and then forgets his rights and accidentally confesses through the skilled technique of a lawful interrogator, that this is a valid confession?

 

I think it would be valid evidence only if the jury watches the entire interrogation for context. I no longer am willing to accept a confession alone as indication of guilt.

[Pangloss]

Well in my opinion that's putting paranoia ahead of reason. I think your concerns are reasonable, but turning them into such conclusions is probably not. The evidence doesn't appear sufficient to support them, at least in my view.

 

I share the belief that it's better to let a guilty man go free than to imprison an innocent man. But when it comes to letting thousands of guilty men go free in order to avoid the possibility that some guilty men might be imprisoned, or even the certainty that a few have, I lose interest pretty rapidly. Those kinds of hair-splitting legal arguments are great for law classes and ethical debates; for the real world in which people die at the hands of criminals every day, not so much.

 

What I do share is a desire to continuously improve the legal system, and a willingness to hold law enforcement and the judiciary to high standards. What I won't do is leap to the conclusion that we live in a police state that has a vested interest in hurting me.

[swansont]

Swansont, do you agree that if a suspect has signed a statement saying that he understands his rights, and then forgets his rights and accidentally confesses through the skilled technique of a lawful interrogator, that this is a valid confession?

 

If the suspect actually understands them, and understands that s/he can stop the interrogation, yes.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

I share the belief that it's better to let a guilty man go free than to imprison an innocent man. But when it comes to letting thousands of guilty men go free in order to avoid the possibility that some guilty men might be imprisoned, or even the certainty that a few have, I lose interest pretty rapidly. Those kinds of hair-splitting legal arguments are great for law classes and ethical debates; for the real world in which people die at the hands of criminals every day, not so much.

 

Did you mean guilty or innocent?

[Double K]

A staggering percentage of convictions are made on confession.

 

It's very important that if you are ever arrested (assuming you actually are innocent) that you say absolutely nothing other than what is required of you.

 

In Australia all you are required to give police is

Identification

(correct) Name & Address

and in some cases your Origin & Destination (ie if you're picked up travelling somewhere)

 

Other than this you are required to tell them nothing, and you can easily be trapped by an officer saying something like in this case above which somehow indicates that you admit guilt even though you really didn't.

 

Co-operate 100% but know your rights and requirements under law.

 

Most confessions obtained during interrogation are done by tripping you up or getting you to inadvertantly confess, say nothing until a lawyer is present, problem solved.

 

If you agree to understanding the rights and then continue to talk, you are considered as having waived your right to remain silent.

[Mr Skeptic]

Well in my opinion that's putting paranoia ahead of reason. I think your concerns are reasonable, but turning them into such conclusions is probably not. The evidence doesn't appear sufficient to support them, at least in my view.

 

I don't think what you think my conclusions are is accurate.

 

I share the belief that it's better to let a guilty man go free than to imprison an innocent man. But when it comes to letting thousands of guilty men go free in order to avoid the possibility that some guilty men might be imprisoned, or even the certainty that a few have, I lose interest pretty rapidly. Those kinds of hair-splitting legal arguments are great for law classes and ethical debates; for the real world in which people die at the hands of criminals every day, not so much.

 

Right, but if the primary evidence that the police have to link someone to a crime is a confession, then they really had no business arresting them.

 

What I do share is a desire to continuously improve the legal system, and a willingness to hold law enforcement and the judiciary to high standards. What I won't do is leap to the conclusion that we live in a police state that has a vested interest in hurting me.

 

They don't really want to hurt you. They have a vested interest in "performing well" and in "catching the bad guys".

[Pangloss]

Did you mean guilty or innocent?

 

LOL! Yes, thanks.

 

I share the belief that it's better to let a guilty man go free than to imprison an innocent man. But when it comes to letting thousands of guilty men go free in order to avoid the possibility that some innocent men might[/i'] be imprisoned, or even the certainty that a few have, I lose interest pretty rapidly. Those kinds of hair-splitting legal arguments are great for law classes and ethical debates; for the real world in which people die at the hands of criminals every day, not so much.

 

Whew.

 

 

A staggering percentage of convictions are made on confession.

 

That's only a "staggering" piece of information if a high percentage of them are actually innocent. As it is, it's not particularly interesting at all. As I understand it, CSI is a fictional program, not an accurate reflection on what real crime scenes are like.

 

 

They don't really want to hurt you. They have a vested interest in "performing well" and in "catching the bad guys".

 

I agree.

 

Right, but if the primary evidence that the police have to link someone to a crime is a confession, then they really had no business arresting them.

 

I disagree.

[Double K]

"Because self-incriminating statements are viewed as such inherently compelling evidence of guilt, false confessions are a leading cause of wrongful conviction. In aggregated case studies, they have accounted for 14 to 60 percent of documented wrongful convictions (Warden, 2003; Bedau & Radelet, 1987; Scheck, Neufeld, & Dwyer, 2000; Gross et al., 2005; Garrett, 2008)."

http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=richardleo (page 12)

 

And that is what they call reasonable doubt.

[Pangloss]

But what is the percentage of convictions that are wrongful?

[Double K]

http://forejustice.org/wc/mi_report_april04.html

...So from 1964 to 2000 knowledgeable estimates of the number of wrongly convicted people range from 2% to 14%, and the finding of the FBI – an agency of the U.S. Department of Justice – lends empirical support to the higher figure.

[Pangloss]

Okay, so a maximum of 8.4% (60% of 14%), and a minimum of 0.28% (14% of 2%), which has a mean of 4.06%. That's the number of cases where a wrongful conviction resulted from a false confession, if those studies are accurate.

 

I can live with that.

Edited June 3, 2010 by Pangloss

[pink_trike]

Okay, so a maximum of 8.4% (14% of 60%), and a minimum of 0.28% (2% of 14%), which has a mean of 4.06%. That's the number of cases where a wrongful conviction resulted from a false confession, if those studies are accurate.

 

I can live with that.

 

It would be interesting to see what % of that 4.06% results in execution. That might not be so easy to live with.

[Pangloss]

Perhaps. For the record, I'm opposed to the death penalty.

[Double K]

Okay, so a maximum of 8.4% (60% of 14%), and a minimum of 0.28% (14% of 2%), which has a mean of 4.06%. That's the number of cases where a wrongful conviction resulted from a false confession, if those studies are accurate.

 

I can live with that.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States

2,304,115 were incarcerated in U.S. prisons and jails in 2008.

 

92165 (possibly) innocent per year.

 

That's alot of people.

I'm glad you can live with that, but that's a heck of alot of lives dramatically altered. Lets just get that in perspective, you incarcerate someone which disconnects them from their family and quite possibly breaks them up from their family depending on if the family thinks they are guilty or not and is prepared to forgive them.

 

In some cases an execution may be more merciful when it comes to completely taking someones life away from them when they are innocent.

[Pangloss]

Sure, and how many of the other 2,211,950 would you set free just to make sure that those 92,165 were protected? Would 100,000 be okay? 200,000?

 

How many people DID get off scott free solely because of the system's inability to convict them due to a legal constraint designed to protect the innocent? Oddly enough, nobody seems to want to collect that data.

 

I'm not defending wrongful convictions, I'm just saying it's important to look at these things in context, not absolutes.

[Double K]

Sure, and how many of the other 2,211,950 would you set free just to make sure that those 92,165 were protected? Would 100,000 be okay? 200,000?

 

How many people DID get off scott free solely because of the system's inability to convict them due to a legal constraint designed to protect the innocent? Oddly enough, nobody seems to want to collect that data.

 

I'm not defending wrongful convictions, I'm just saying it's important to look at these things in context, not absolutes.

 

Its easy to look at things in context and not absolutes as long as they arent directly affecting you.

 

"Kill em all and let god sort em out" Isn't a workable approach either, although it has certainly been tried before.

 

I'm not defending criminals should get off scott free if guilty either.

 

We're not just talking numbers here, we're talking human beings. Like you and me, and possibly one day, you or I could be sitting in the wrong chair.

 

I was watching a show the other day on an Australian guy that has been in jail around 20 years now, was jailed when he was 21 or so, he was convicted with DNA evidence (when DNA science was very new and in it's infancy)

He has maintained his innocence since his arrest, and was recently denied parole as part of his parole condition was to admit guilt. He refused to admit guilt and to this day, remains in prison. The Innocence Project is working on getting him a retrail.

 

http://www.innocenceproject.org/

 

20+ years of this guys life gone. Chance to have kids, gone, chance of a wife and enjoying his life like you and I have the liberty to do.

 

Assuming it was a wrongful conviction - in Australian law (unlike American) if you are wrongfully imprisoned, you get no compensation, all you get is an apology. For 20 years of your life stolen.

[Pangloss]

Yup, I agree with all that. Here's another very human angle: "That man killed my daughter and you had his confession, but you let him go?" I'm not disagreeing with you, but it is a complex equation.

[Double K]

Yup, I agree with all that. Here's another very human angle: "That man killed my daughter and you had his confession, but you let him go?" I'm not disagreeing with you, but it is a complex equation.

 

Totally, and I guess any system is going to be flawed, in some regard.

 

Although there was a case just the other day of a man beating the living **** out of a guy who molested his 10yr old son.

 

He was aquitted the jury saying that any reasonable parent would have reacted the same way.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/queensland/a/-/newshome/7334330/father-acquitted-over-violent-bashing-of-sons-molester/

 

Vigilantism isn't a good option either...just saying