Is this neccessary in todays world ? Is it enough (if not given by police) to toss a trial aside ?
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to be speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense.
Is it enough (if not given by police) to toss a trial aside ?
Having no wisdom on case history, I can only give my opinion on this. That is, with the frilly frolly BS lawsuits going through the system and the ability of a very sharp lawyer to get anyone off the hook, I do not think it's enough, if not given by police, to toss a trial.
__________________
We were made by God and for God, and until you figure that out, life isn't going to make sense.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a civilization, it expects what never was and what never will be.
Since the Constitution hasn't changed and there is no case law, to my limited knowledge, to change things, Yes it is still necessary.
Regardless of how common one may believe the awareness is of ones Rights maybe, it is the States responsiblity to not violate those rights. If that means taking the time to advise and Arrested subject who is to be questioned of their Miranda Rights to ensure the vcitims rights so be it.
One of the problems in general conversation with people is that they have no idea when the LEO is required to advise a person of their rights. Too much TV and too little knowledge of the law and the Constitution. A person can be arrested, go through an entire trial and never have been advised of their rights and it could be perfectly legal. Rare but possible.
__________________
Now you have to picture a combination of PeeWEE Herman and Wally Cox but with less muscle tone, trying to be intimidating None of this is funny! Message edited by Cougar Mag -- 1/7/2005 1:16:42 AM >/b]
Reason I am asking is the Kobe Bryant case - I guess he talked to the police for hours without them giving him the Miranda reading and they recorded it. In those conversations he said he did not have sex with the woman and then later admitted he did.
Defense is trying to throw all that out because of the lack of reading him his "rights"
S-Cat, I can only speculate but I would guess it went down something like this... LEO...KB, we would like to talk to you at the station house about some accusations that have been made by a hotel employee. Would you come with us? KB....Im I under arrest? LEO...No, you can leave anytime you want and I you choose not to come you don't have to.
logs(The thinking here by the LEO is that they know exactly who he is, they can locate him anytime they want and they are not sure they really have a crime commited. Talking to him will help deterime that fact)
KB...Sure I got nothing to hide, why not. (dumb honkies, do they know who I am, Iam a super star NBA player, there just dumb arse honky cops. I make more in one game than they make in a year)
LEO..Great, this will help clear the matter up and you will be on your way shortly. (Stupid jerk, we got him now. He's either going to lie or give us enough rope to hang the entire starting line up. I hope she was worth it. He could have got a hooker for a couple of hundred bucks that would have stayed all night. If he screwed her this is going to cost him his marriage and maybe his carrier)
logs I'd bet Im pretty close on this one
__________________
Now you have to picture a combination of PeeWEE Herman and Wally Cox but with less muscle tone, trying to be intimidating None of this is funny! Message edited by Cougar Mag -- 1/7/2005 1:16:42 AM >/b]
Personally I believe that these rights come with the responsibility of knowing them. It's up to us not only to know what we may not do, but also what we may do. The police shouldn't have to read the law books to people for them.
Personally I believe that these rights come with the responsibility of knowing them. It's up to us not only to know what we may not do, but also what we may do. The police shouldn't have to read the law books to people for them.
While I agree that everyone should know there rights, I still think that the police should have to tell you them. I wish that I would have had some type of "teaching" about this in High School, not that I needed it or anything. But in college I did take a course that taught this type of thing.
__________________
Caution - Some posts may contain sarcasim
DENVER "” Shortly after midnight July 2, two detectives with the Eagle County Sheriff's Department arrived at the Colorado mountain resort where basketball star Kobe Bryant was staying to recuperate from knee surgery.
Six other officers were already at the Lodge and Spa at Cordillera, which bills itself as "one of the most luxurious retreats in the world." They were keeping an eye on the Los Angeles Lakers guard. He was suspected of raping a 19-year-old concierge at the resort the night of June 30.
Detectives Doug Winters and Daniel Loya were sitting in a van in the lodge's parking lot. They were startled when Bryant, on crutches, approached them. "What's going on fellas?" Bryant asked, according to Winters' testimony at a pretrial hearing in February.
Bryant then talked with the detectives for about 75 minutes. He wasn't given the famous Miranda warning that he had a right to remain silent and to have a lawyer present during questioning. And he didn't know Loya had a tape recorder in his pocket and was taping the conversation that began in the parking lot and continued in Bryant's room.
What Bryant told the detectives is unknown to the public and the media. But that conversation is part of the fierce battle between prosecutors and defense lawyers over what evidence can be used during Bryant's trial on a charge of felony sexual assault. If convicted, he faces a possible maximum sentence of life in prison.
Part of this legal fight is whether Bryant's lawyers can bring up the woman's sexual history as part of his defense. But another part is what Bryant told police and whether it can be used at his trial.
His lawyers are arguing that the taped conversation shouldn't be allowed because police never gave Bryant the Miranda warning mandated by the Supreme Court in 1966. Further, they argue, the detectives had a court order to collect "non-testimonial" evidence and were not authorized to interrogate him.
Later this month, District Court Judge Terry Ruckriegle will resume hearing a motion by Bryant's lawyers to exclude the tape from the trial. The lawyers also want to bar the use of certain evidence taken the same day, including one of Bryant's T-shirts with a blood stain, as well as samples of his hair, blood and saliva that Bryant gave at a hospital in nearby Glenwood Springs after his talk with police. The defense lawyers say that evidence was collected illegally.
Most of the arguments over the tape recording have taken place behind closed doors. That makes it difficult for the public to know how important the conversation will be when Bryant goes to trial, probably this summer.
"It's going to depend on what he said," says Karen Steinhauser, a former Denver prosecutor who teaches law at the University of Denver. If Bryant, in his conversation with detectives, denied having sex with his accuser, "it shows he lied to police. And why would he lie if he was not trying to cover something up?" Steinhauser says.
Bryant, 25, who is married, has admitted having sex with the woman but says she consented.
A critical component of the judge's decision about the use of the conversation is whether Bryant was "in custody" when he talked to the detectives. If he was, police should have told Bryant about his Miranda rights, a legal warning familiar to TV viewers of police dramas.
"Whether a person is in custody or a reasonable person would think he is in custody is the key issue," says Andrew Cohen, a Denver-based legal commentator and lawyer. "Did he think he could leave the interview? Did he have reason to believe he was literally at the mercy of police? It's a factual issue that is hard to define with a bright line."
During the one open court session in February where the issue of the tape was discussed, the detectives and Bryant's lawyers had different interpretations about the conversation that night at the 56-room resort in Edwards, Colo.
Winters, one of the detectives, testified that Bryant talked willingly, did not object to continuing the interview in his hotel room and even shook his hand. "We told the suspect he was not under arrest and free to leave," Winters said. "I never became confrontational with the defendant. I wasn't in his face."
But Bryant's lawyers, Hal Haddon and Pamela Mackey, say the basketball star was effectively in custody and should have been read his Miranda rights. He "was not free to leave," and the officers used an "accusatory tone," the lawyers said in court filings.
"If a person feels he is free to leave, then he is not in custody," Steinhauser says. Whether someone is considered in custody is "very subjective and very fact specific, so the court looks at all kinds of factors: What was the tone of voice of the officers, how many officers were present, were they blocking the door, what did they say."
The Supreme Court has reviewed the Miranda issue nearly 50 times since its original ruling. The court has refined the rights of defendants and allowed exceptions that give police and prosecutors more latitude in using suspects' statements, even if warnings aren't given. Many police departments train officers on how to creatively side-step violating Miranda rights to get the most information without reading suspects their rights.
"Especially in the last 30 years or so, police have been given a lot more leeway to question suspects," Cohen says. "Police are allowed to go up to that line in the law and even smudge it a bit to get information."
While I agree that everyone should know there rights, I still think that the police should have to tell you them. I wish that I would have had some type of "teaching" about this in High School, not that I needed it or anything. But in college I did take a course that taught this type of thing.
If we want to be informed and involved citizens, we have to inform and involve ourselves. "I didn't know any better" is not a valid excuse for anything, especially in today's world.
Miranda warning
