Posted on 06/23/2022 11:16:09 AM PDT by Macho MAGA Man
On Thursday, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in Vega V Tekoh, a case involving the administration of Miranda rights, with the court ruling that a suspect’s words or statements can be used in court regardless of their Miranda rights.
For background, these are the facts of the case in question:
Terence Tekoh worked as a patient transporter in a hospital in Los Angeles. After a patient accused him of sexual assault, hospital staff reported the allegation to the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department. Deputy Carlos Vega went to the hospital to ask Tekoh questions and take Tekoh’s statement. Although the parties described vastly different accounts of the nature of the interaction between Tekoh and Vega, it is undisputed that Vega did not advise Tekoh of his Miranda rights before questioning him or taking his statement.
Tekoh was arrested and charged in California state court, but a jury returned a verdict of not guilty. Following the acquittal on the criminal charge, Tekoh sued Vega, alleging that Vega violated Tekoh’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination by taking his statement without first advising him of his Miranda rights.
Justice Samuel Alito issued his ruling, a count of 6-3, deciding that using such statements outside of Miranda rights is not a violation of a defendant’s rights and does not give them the right to sue the court for such use.
....... Snip.......
The ruling brings into question the future of Miranda rights. Essentially Thursday’s ruling implies that any conversation, coerced or voluntary, taken in the absence of Miranda, can be used against a defendant in a court of law.
Thursday’s ruling is a threat to the Fitfh Amendment, which states that “no person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
Exactly!
Exactly.
From what I’ve read from other sources, the case doesn’t change anything about what is admissible in court. It only ruled that you can’t sue for a civil rights violation if they fail to read you your Miranda rights.
I don’t understand how this is a “threat” to the 5th Amendment. This person was not compelled to talk to or give a statement. One has the inherent right to not speak to law enforcement.
🎯👍
Bingo ... a narrow ruling it is!
Correct....I remember some BIG sports player tried to have his statements hidden. Didn’t work.
All true!
I would still remind people about the General Flynn scenario talking with FBI agent Peter Strzock without a lawyer present.
There's a difference when you are arresting someone.
“From what I’ve read from other sources, the case doesn’t change anything about what is admissible in court. It only ruled that you can’t sue for a civil rights violation if they fail to read you your Miranda rights.”
Misinformation is rampant on Free Republic, and Gateway Pundit is one of the main causes.
Watch vids of defiant, right asserting drivers. Often gets gnarly. Can you do that? Can many others?
Please let me know what the law is. I thought Miranda rights were given only after a person is arrested.
This decision does not "gut" Miranda.
I spent a lot of time teaching this to my children. If any law enforcement officer or government official asks you a question, direct them to your mother or to me. Do not answer the question unless it is a matter of life or death, i.e. which room is the baby in during a fire.
Most hospital employees don’t admit they sexually assaulted women in a hospital. They will be judged in a court that does not recognize Miranda, as will their supporters.
You got it!!
I mean, it's not like it's a secret.
You're not understanding how this works. Law enforcement will lie/pressure you to talk. They use psychology techniques. They will hold you against your will. Implied threats. They'll say "witnesses claim they saw you assault the victim" when that isn't true. They will claim nonexistent video evidence. Weak minded people will crack under duress such as this.
Agreed and that means never, not even when they are not investiagting anything.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.