[tanknetter]

If the police are going to question someone in custody, then the Miranda rights must be read.

No, they don't. There was a Supreme Court ruling on this a couple years back, can't remember the case. But so long as the police and prosecutors don't try to use whatever the suspect says to indict and try, they don't have to Mirandise.

It's useful in cases where it's key to get quick information/intelligence out of a suspect.

In this situation they have the punk dead to rights on being the 2nd bomber. There's video, pictures, all sorts of additional forensics tying him to both the bombing and being in the shootout Thursday night/Friday morning. He's going to get convicted regardless of what he says or doesn't say. Hopefully he'll ride the needle, just like McVeigh did. But with this Administration I have my doubts. A better alternative would be to just strip him of his US Citizenship and hand him over to Putin for a little justice, Russian-style.

There's absolutely no need to Mirandize him. Better to put as much pressure as legally possible to get him to spill information on potential accomplices, funding, training and the like.

[Enterprise]

I'll modify and extend my remarks:

If someone is in custody, and the police want to present his statements as evidence at trial, they must Mirandize. You are correct in that evidence obtained which is not the result of a Mirandized statement can be used to convict. It happens all the time where a suspect clams up, but there is enough to convict anyway.