Interesting Miranda Ruling from Supreme Court

[jackson33]

rigney quote;

But we have too many criminals walking the street today as free men because some slick attorney with no moral compass of their own, has turned our justice system on its ear. Yes, on rare occasions an innocent person has been convicted of crimes that in a few instances has even led to their being put to death. But it's the ten thousand to one bad guys who don't get convicted that bothers me!! Miranda Rights were perhaps meant as a check of doing injustice to innocent people, but has evolved into a joke. [/Quote]

 

Without some restraints, we might just as well go back to vigilante law, or maybe take on Dutch Law, where an accused is presumed guilty, until proven innocent or maybe Sharia Law, where quilt is judged by a Religious interpretation. American Law, British Common Law were designed to afford the ignorant and equal chance in being judged as the learned, the actual meaning of Justice, blind approach to judgement.

 

Factually, most all conviction are carried out through our system with out any problems, the investigations are performed and advanced honorably, prosecution/plea agreements reached and punishment judged fairly and extremely questionable, the person serves their obligations to society in a fairly operated place. This problem we're talking about here, is when somewhere in the process a snag occurs and the potential for true justice may have been blocked.

 

 

 

ParanoiA quote;

Money doesn't get people free either - fancy high priced lawyers don't get you free, rather the ability to negotiate the justice system for maximum benefit is how you "get free". I've heard this sentiment a thousand times...so and so gets a pricey attorney and gets off free - and it's BS. Buying talent doesn't auto-magically get you out of jail. [/Quote]

 

P, it's not the pricey, more so the best; Their are simply better attorneys than others, no different than there are baseball player or anything else. If you want a baseball team, and this could be done, you could hire the best 40 player known on the planet and win a vast majority of games played. The very best attorney's both prosecuting or defense rarely, if ever let a case to go court they don't feel a favorable opinion (judgment) will be the outcome. They will plea down or up, negotiate or try to make a fair settlement first. The pricey does come in with the process and the experience of applying that process by an attorney or his/her TEAM. Very few ignorant, poor, ill mannered or frankly the average accused person, will ever get the best, even for Capital Crimes.

 

One prime example and costly is in Jury Selection, where a defense might have two or three professional psychologist assisting in whom to keep or excuse. Another item in high profile cases are setting up their own jury or several and testing their approach(s) to a particular case.

None of this is common knowledge or other behind the scenes activity (investigative), which run up cost and never referred to on TV. Can you imagine, John or Mary Smith, from South Chicago with appointed Attorney's, getting this kind of service? Granted, buying talent is not a guarantee but more often than not it results in some success, even acquittals and more importantly the lack of, results in false convictions, IMO...

[Pangloss]

Do yourself a favor and go rent the movie "Under Suspicion" (2000) with Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman. The acting and writing is superb and it's one of the best movies period, even though most of it takes place in an interrogation room. In addition it's relevant to this exchange...

 

It's hard to see how.

[swansont]

The implication of the article (in fact the direct statement) is that he requested a lawyer and was denied one. But in fact no evidence to that effect is presented. So there is no reason to think that anything incorrect or untoward has taken place here. The fact that he later turned out to be innocent does not inform us that the police made a mistake.

 

So it's not a false dilemma, it is the central and critical question. Thank you for answering it, but it wasn't about you, it's about the ideology behind articles like the one you linked -- their authors hide behind hindsight and intellectual assumptions that don't match the boots-on-the-ground reality of criminal investigation.

 

Why is the default assumption that he is lying? That he willfully confessed to a crime that he did not commit, with no coercion (using the lay definition) from the police? Why the assumption that it's just his word, when the article refers to court records?

 

Though it was coerced, according to the legal definition. At least, the evidence was persuasive enough for a jury to say it was.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-06-16/news/ct-met-0616-riley-fox-clues-20100616_1_riley-fox-partial-dna-sample-deputy-scott-swearengen

[ParanoiA]

It's hard to see how.

 

Not to the OP, but to mine and rigney's exchange.

[Pangloss]

Why is the default assumption that he is lying?

 

That's very cheesy of you to go putting words in my mouth. You know full well that I'm talking about the hypothetical of early police investigation. I never said he was lying, I said the police have no way to know whether he is or not -- that's why (as you AGREED) they have to investigate. So don't cop out now with this sort of cheesiness.

 

 

Though it was coerced, according to the legal definition.

 

Not a legal definition, but rather a jury finding. Two very different things. And again, totally beside the point.

 

 

Not to the OP, but to mine and rigney's exchange.

 

I find it really hard to see how watching a Hollywood movie can inform us of ANYTHING useful on the subject of police interrogation. IMO socio-political policy should NEVER be informed by entertainment, even at the most superficial, background level.

 

My two bits anway.

[swansont]

That's very cheesy of you to go putting words in my mouth. You know full well that I'm talking about the hypothetical of early police investigation. I never said he was lying, I said the police have no way to know whether he is or not -- that's why (as you AGREED) they have to investigate. So don't cop out now with this sort of cheesiness.

 

"He claims he didn't waive his right to counsel, but we have no way to know that this is the case."

"The implication of the article (in fact the direct statement) is that he requested a lawyer and was denied one. But in fact no evidence to that effect is presented."

 

Twice you stated that we have no way to know if he's telling the truth, and proceeded to dismiss the claims because (according to you) they were unsubstantiated. You assumed that he was not telling the truth. and now you say that's not the same as assuming he's lying, and I'm being cheesy? Truth/Lie is a binary state. If you have assumed someone is not telling the truth, you are assuming they are lying.

 

What you didn't say is the police have no way of knowing if he's telling the truth, which is a very different statement. Since you didn't say that, I don't know full well that you are talking about "the hypothetical of early police investigation." This isn't an issue of whether the police have to investigate or not (though if you read the article, you'll see they screwed that up pretty badly). It's about the methods they use in interrogations, and what their limits are or should be.

 

 

 

Not a legal definition, but rather a jury finding. Two very different things. And again, totally beside the point.

 

My two bits anway.

 

If it's beside the point, the I don't know what your point is, and it's clear that you are arguing a different point than I am. If a jury finds you guilty of coercion, then we can say that you are guilty of coercion in the legal sense. This was a legal proceeding, not some gang hanging out on the corner called "The Jury"

 

We have corroborating evidence that he was telling the truth. He was coerced into his confession. That points to police overstepping their bounds in interrogations. So much so that they subsequently passed a law requiring that interrogations be videotaped.

[ParanoiA]

I find it really hard to see how watching a Hollywood movie can inform us of ANYTHING useful on the subject of police interrogation. IMO socio-political policy should NEVER be informed by entertainment, even at the most superficial, background level.

 

My two bits anway.

 

I never meant for my little movie suggestion to be taken so seriously as a socio-political policy device. It was tailored specifically for rigney. He's an old fella that's had a hard time of it here at SFN on the get-go and I was just trying to connect with the dude on a looser, easy going level.

 

The one function that art provides, that is valuable to philosophical inquiry, is the ability to invoke empathy. Art, while it can be conceptually complex or intellectually challenging, is at its core an emotional medium. The ability to sympathize and understand how someone can be brought to confess to something they didn't do, is a decent mission for an art piece.

 

I've never suggested a hollywood film piece in any of my arguments before, nor any music influences, even though I spend the bulk of my life immersed in it. That should say something about how I apply art and entertainment to socio-political policy.

[Pangloss]

Twice you stated that we have no way to know if he's telling the truth, and proceeded to dismiss the claims because (according to you) they were unsubstantiated.You assumed that he was not telling the truth.

 

Correct. Which is not the same thing as calling him a liar. Stop putting words in my mouth and acknowledge what you know full well: I'm saying that the police at the time of an arrest has no DNA evidence and should not take suspects at their word. They should interrogate any suspect who waives his Miranda rights.

 

 

We have corroborating evidence that he was telling the truth. He was coerced into his confession.

 

These two statements do not logically follow. You have not accounted for the obvious possibility that he simply decided to avoid further stress from interrogation. You have not accounted for the possibility that he waived his Miranda rights. You are the one leaping to conclusions, not I.

[swansont]

Correct. Which is not the same thing as calling him a liar. Stop putting words in my mouth and acknowledge what you know full well: I'm saying that the police at the time of an arrest has no DNA evidence and should not take suspects at their word. They should interrogate any suspect who waives his Miranda rights.

 

I will say this again, since you appear to have missed it: I am not talking about whether the police knew he was telling the truth, and you did not make it clear that this was what you were talking about. You put your responses in terms of what "we" know, not "what the police knew." We know he was telling the truth about being interrogated at length and not waiving his Miranda rights; it was established in a court of law. Because of this, we know that the article's authors were not simply taking his word for it. They have others' testimony as well.

 

I don't understand what any of this has to do with what the police did or did not know. You keep bringing up DNA evidence, which has no bearing on whether the interrogation was coercive, and whether he told the truth about being interrogated. I don't see what relation it has to coercive interrogation. I did not bring it up and have mentioned more than once it's not what I'm talking about. If that's the tangent you want to discuss, leave me out of it.

 

 

 

These two statements do not logically follow. You have not accounted for the obvious possibility that he simply decided to avoid further stress from interrogation. You have not accounted for the possibility that he waived his Miranda rights. You are the one leaping to conclusions, not I.

 

After he was exonerated there was a trial. In the opinion of a jury there was a preponderance of evidence that the interrogation was coercive and he and his wife were awarded damages. Do you have evidence that contradicts the jury finding? Do we just assume that all jury findings are false, and people found to be guilty are still innocent? If not, why assume it in this case?

[Pangloss]

We know he was telling the truth about being interrogated at length and not waiving his Miranda rights; it was established in a court of law.

 

No, we don't know that. The fact that he was found not guilty of the crime doesn't establish that he did not waive his Miranda rights. It does not.

 

 

After he was exonerated there was a trial. In the opinion of a jury there was a preponderance of evidence that the interrogation was coercive and he and his wife were awarded damages. Do you have evidence that contradicts the jury finding? Do we just assume that all jury findings are false, and people found to be guilty are still innocent? If not, why assume it in this case?

 

More putting words in my mouth, more obfuscation, more misdirection. What the jury found later does not help the police at the start of the process -- as you've already agreed. I never said or suggested that the jury be ignored, nor have I said that he is guilty of anything.

 

I clearly wrote hypothetically, in the present tense, discussing what we, clearly including the police (unless you do your own "investigations"), know at the start of an investigation. You yourself even agreed with me that the police should investigate crimes, as part of that hypothetical discussion.

 

To summarize:

1) His innocence does not indicate whether he waived his Miranda rights.

2) His innocence does not indicate whether police coerced him.

3) His innocence does not inform us that he should not have been investigated.

 

The reason for #1 is that we have only his word vs the police -- he said, he said. You're asking us to cross a logical boundary there, so the onus is entirely on you to provide evidence for that crossing.

 

The reasons for #2 and #3 are that those things have to take place BEFORE innocence is determined. You're putting the cart before the horse, it's extremely transparent, and frankly you're too smart not to not know better.

 

But hey, you're not the first guy here to put ideology over logic. Welcome to Politics, swansont! I knew we'd get you down here into the mud with us sooner or later.

[iNow]

Oh, give me a break. Yeah... It's no longer worth posting here. You're a mod, for Thor's sake.

Edited July 23, 2010 by iNow

[swansont]

No, we don't know that. The fact that he was found not guilty of the crime doesn't establish that he did not waive his Miranda rights. It does not.

 

OK, no go back an reread my posts, since you clearly have not: I never claimed this. I said that we know he did not, because he sued the police, and won. It was established at THAT TRIAL that his confession was coerced.

 

 

More putting words in my mouth, more obfuscation, more misdirection. What the jury found later does not help the police at the start of the process -- as you've already agreed. I never said or suggested that the jury be ignored, nor have I said that he is guilty of anything.

 

I clearly wrote hypothetically, in the present tense, discussing what we, clearly including the police (unless you do your own "investigations"), know at the start of an investigation. You yourself even agreed with me that the police should investigate crimes, as part of that hypothetical discussion.

 

For the third or fourth, or perhaps fifth time, I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THIS! You DID NOT mention the police at the start of your contribution to this — that came LATER.

 

 

To summarize:

1) His innocence does not indicate whether he waived his Miranda rights.

2) His innocence does not indicate whether police coerced him.

3) His innocence does not inform us that he should not have been investigated.

 

To summarize:

 

I never claimed that it did, for all three. I claimed that the subsequent civil trial establishes that his confession was coerced.

 

The reason for #1 is that we have only his word vs the police -- he said, he said. You're asking us to cross a logical boundary there, so the onus is entirely on you to provide evidence for that crossing.

 

The reasons for #2 and #3 are that those things have to take place BEFORE innocence is determined. You're putting the cart before the horse, it's extremely transparent, and frankly you're too smart not to not know better.

 

You are continuing to argue a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT F%$@KING POINT than I am.

 

The CIVIL TRIAL was not held to determine his innocence or guilt. It was to determine if his confession was coerced and his rights were violated — and the jury found that they were. I am going to assume that the decision was based on facts presented at the trial.

 

 

 

But hey, you're not the first guy here to put ideology over logic. Welcome to Politics, swansont! I knew we'd get you down here into the mud with us sooner or later.

 

You want me in the mud? Fine. You insult me (again), I'll not hold back any longer. I'm not putting ideology over logic, so screw you. Go take a reading comprehension course and then go over the thread again.

 

Start with your first post on this topic

 

That story indicates no evidence that the man's claim is factual. It simply reports what he said, throwing a label on it that declares it to be the reason why people give "false confessions".

 

You don't talk about the police here, you talk about the story. The bulk of my posts have been to rebut this statement — that there was an additional legal proceeding whose sole purpose was to (essentially) determine whether the claims in the story were true. The story did not simply report what he said, as you claim — the situation was much more involved. The truth of those claims had already been established. It's a Chicago paper; the story was well-known in the region, so perhaps the authors (or editors) did not feel the need to re-hash all of that, since it was generally known.

[ParanoiA]

Oh, give me a break. Yeah... It's no longer worth posting here. You're a mod, for Thor's sake.

 

I don't understand this. What is he doing wrong? The mods are locked in a bitter battle and both are showing a scope of respect that you and I are incapable of. I think if that were you and I, we'd already have locked this baby...

 

I said that we know he did not, because he sued the police, and won. It was established at THAT TRIAL that his confession was coerced.

 

I'm not seeing this in that article. I've read it twice...well once, and then re-scanned it just now. Maybe I missed it. Could you quote the part of the article that tells us he sued the police and won?

 

Aside from that, I'm not compelled to value any change in tactics by anything presented in the article, other than video taping interrogations. Like war, there is no way to avoid innocent casualties here. Those same interrogation tactics, like exploiting mental deficiencies and brow beating the parents, work very well on guilty people.

 

But video taping these sessions could be just the trick to keep everyone legitimate in the process. No doubt it would be exploited by the defense, taking advantage of the jury's lack of experience with interrogation techniques, but it still seems like the right way to go.

 

All that said, I just can't imagine dealing with the death of your child and then having to be separated from your family, at a time you need them the most, while people scream at you and torture you with pictures...that's just unimaginably cruel. But I also see no way around it. It's even more unimaginably cruel to murder your child, and we know people do it.

Edited July 23, 2010 by ParanoiA

[Pangloss]

I said that we know he did not, because he sued the police, and won. It was established at THAT TRIAL that his confession was coerced.

 

The CIVIL TRIAL was not held to determine his innocence or guilt. It was to determine if his confession was coerced and his rights were violated — and the jury found that they were. I am going to assume that the decision was based on facts presented at the trial.

 

Yes, I did understand that earlier, but you didn't present any evidence that the jury had anything to go by other than the man's opinion, so I don't see where some legal decision after the fact, or the fact that he was ultimately found innocent (which it sure seemed to me that you were using as leverage, but if you say not, fine), has anything to do with what the police had to do at the start of the investigation.

 

I'll leave the rest be since I know you're out of town. I wasn't trying to insult you, just make a (bad) joke -- I am sorry about that. Remember: Political discussion can be frustrating, and that's why you don't post as much here! But I wasn't kidding when I said it's nice to see you mixing it up.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I'm not seeing this in that article. I've read it twice...well once, and then re-scanned it just now. Maybe I missed it. Could you quote the part of the article that tells us he sued the police and won?

 

Right here:

 

"Looking at all of the information that we now have about Eby, he could have been apprehended the day after the murder, and he probably would have confessed," said attorney Kathleen Zellner, who won an $8 million federal civil court judgment on behalf of Kevin Fox and Riley's mother, Melissa.

 

[...]

 

During the civil trial, an FBI agent testified that then-Sgt. Edward Hayes, who led the investigation, ordered that DNA testing be stopped after the arrest of Fox, who incriminated himself in a statement made after 14 hours of interrogation. The civil jury found Fox's statement was coerced and held Hayes and Deputy Scott Swearengen mainly responsible.

 

So, in summary:

 

• On the basis of a confession, the investigators stopped DNA testing.
• That confession was found to be coerced in a trial.
• The confession was false.

At the time they ordered the DNA testing stopped, all they knew was that a confession existed and they coerced it out of the suspect.

 

What does this demonstrate?

 

1. Police put false confidence in confessions.
2. Police coerce people to make confessions, even when they are innocent.
3. Some people confess to crimes they didn't commit without coercion. (See, for example, cases in which numerous people confess to the same, well-publicized crime.)
4. Police believe confessions are all that is necessary in court; when they have a confession, they don't need DNA evidence.

Is this a problem? Yes. Police interrogate people, get a false confession, don't bother getting other evidence, and then are surprised when it turns out their suspect is innocent.

 

Settled?

[ParanoiA]

Ok, I just searched the article again doing a 'find' to look for the text, and it shows up nowhere. Maybe I'm looking at the wrong article. I thought this was all about Swansont's link from post #60.

 

Ran across this: Chicago Tribune: What causes people to give false confessions?

 

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-07-11/news/ct-met-forced-confessions-20100711_1_confess-dna-evidence-interrogation

 

 

 

 

Anyway, sounds like a decent summary if the implied correction is to continue with evidence gathering regardless of any confessions. Police get confessions out of guilty people too, with techniques that might offend us but not the law, and I don't want that to stop. Coercion implies illegal leverage, and of course that should absolutely stop. I still think video taping confessions are the way to go.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Post #78, this link:

 

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-06-16/news/ct-met-0616-riley-fox-clues-20100616_1_riley-fox-partial-dna-sample-deputy-scott-swearengen

[Pangloss]

A jury finding is not a fact determination. A trial will ALWAYS make a determination, even when it lacks sufficient evidence. This is why the negation outcome of a criminal trial is phrased "not guilty" instead of "innocent".

 

This is even more the case in CIVIL trials, like the one being discussed here. Don't we all remember that OJ Simpson was found "not guilty" in his criminal trial, but "liable for murder" in his civil case, having to forfeit all his money and property? The standard of evidence was lighter.

 

Wikipedia[/url]']The standard of proof in the United States is typically preponderance of the evidence as opposed to clear and convincing or beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

That finding doesn't tell us if this man waived his Miranda rights or not. And therein lies a very simple problem that is not so simple to answer when you have to actually investigate crime without the benefit of hindsight and a DNA test.

[swansont]

A jury finding is not a fact determination. A trial will ALWAYS make a determination, even when it lacks sufficient evidence. This is why the negation outcome of a criminal trial is phrased "not guilty" instead of "innocent".

 

This is even more the case in CIVIL trials, like the one being discussed here. Don't we all remember that OJ Simpson was found "not guilty" in his criminal trial, but "liable for murder" in his civil case, having to forfeit all his money and property? The standard of evidence was lighter.

 

But the default of a civil trial is to find for the defendant. The jury needs a preponderance of evidence to find for the plaintiff(s) in a civil trial. (And OJ was technically found liable for damages stemming from wrongful death.)

 

 

That finding doesn't tell us if this man waived his Miranda rights or not. And therein lies a very simple problem that is not so simple to answer when you have to actually investigate crime without the benefit of hindsight and a DNA test.

 

And this is still beside the point, as it has been all along. There are supposed to be limits on what the police are allowed to do in interrogations; it's not a matter of interrogating or not. Though in this particular case, it was pretty much interrogation instead of investigation, which makes it a good cautionary tale.

[Mr Skeptic]

Though in this particular case, it was pretty much interrogation instead of investigation, which makes it a good cautionary tale.

 

I wonder how common that it.