Posted on 06/23/2022 11:16:09 AM PDT by Macho MAGA Man
Quite correct.
However this was a ruling about a Civil case, not a criminal case. Civil cases usually only involve money, Criminal cases you can lose rights, freedoms, and money (if they can it out of you while you rot in jail.)
Never talk to a cop, without a lawyer present.
More Grifter Pundit trash.
The only thing the court decided today, is that the court made up rule in Miranda (which has as much basis in the Constitution as the made up rule in Roe) is not the basis for a 1983 action.
Nothing more.
NOTHING.
If you are in custody and interrogated without Miranda warnings, the statements won’t come into court.
Miranda rights were not gutted, and Queer Hoft is a liar.
Please, what clap trap sensationalized headline...
All the court ruled was if you aren’t advised of your miranda rights and the cops take your statement and us it later, you can’t sue the cops.
They didn’t gut anything here... If you weren’t told your rights and they take your statement and try to use it in court that’s a mistrial, the statement is inadmissible.
All the court ruled here is you can’t sue the cop... Nothing gutted here.
“Misinformation is rampant on Free Republic, and Gateway Pundit is one of the main causes.”
Ditto that. I’m way past the point of even looking at a GP article.
Thank you for posting truth rather than relying on the lies of the degenerate queer Hoft and his grifter blog designed to string along the trailer trash and dumbs.
Miranda applies to custodial interrogation, not mere interviews.
He could have just said, "Talk to my lawyer....................
Well, and the synopsis is incorrect. This does nothing to undermine Miranda or gut the 5th.
The fact remains that unless you are given your Miranda rights, nothing you say can be used against you in court. Its evidence that is disallowed, even if you confess to murder. Certainly a technicality, but it is the way it is.
The prosecutor should have known that and refused to move forward with the case. This isn’t about whether he was guilty or innocent of the crime. Its about whether he can sue over being tried after winning his trial. You can’t.
But if your defense is successful, who pays for it? Its certainly not cheap to put up a criminal defense and most people don’t have a couple hundred thousand laying around to do it. Are you just screwed?
That’s not completely accurate. There is something called a spontaneous declaration. If an LEO gets called to a scene of a domestic and the wife is dead on the floor and the Husband is standing in the driveway screaming “I killed the B!tch” that can absolutely be used in a court proceeding. Miranda only applies when an Officer is asking the questions.
So The Gateway Pundit strikes again - another garbage article.
Again I ask - why does any person in the their right mind continue to post from this source?
The Supreme Court informs me to invoke the 5th and remain silent.
From 2013...
<> Supreme Court Rules Fifth Amendment Has to Actually Be Invoked <>
In a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court ruled [in 2013] that a potential defendant’s silence can be used against him if he is being interviewed by police but is not arrested (and read his Miranda rights) and has not verbally invoked the protection of the Fifth Amendment.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3038224/posts
Anyone with a TV should be aware of Miranda.
Don’t even talk to the FBI with a lawyer present. Even with a lawyer present, record the conversation.
Have read stories of the FBI showing up the office of someone’s lawyer and FBI agents being told that they were going to record the meeting. FBI tells the lawyer that they are not allowed to have their interviews recorded. Lawyer tells the FBI he is going to record the interview anyway. FBI agents get up and leave the meeting. Apparently the FBI wasn’t all that interested in the interview if it was going to be recorded.
Not what the ruling said. The case was already tossed in the state courts once the Miranda violation voided the evidence. This is solely whether the officer could still be sued for the Miranda violation.
It’s an inexusably basic error. I don’t know whether the author of this particular piece is a lawyer or not, but I don’t know which is worse: That GP would hire a non-lawyer to write about court cases, or that they’d hire a lawyer who is so bad that he misreads a decision so completely.
Truer words were never spoken.
“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.”
This is such bull! The Miranda reading has been on EVERY cop show for like 50 years. Just because the rights weren’t read doesn’t mean the guy didn’t know about them.
We need more immigrant doctors and muslims so that women can be molested while they’re under in the hospital. It’s just their culture and all cultures are equal, and we need that sweet sweet diversity so we can virtue signal - sorry ladies! Diversity rules!
Then too, that statement that says: You have the right to remain silent, then at the end the cop asks "Do you understand your rights? Say nothing because the first statement about you having the right to remain silent answers it.
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.