Justices Reaffirm Miranda Rights

The Supreme Court reaffirmed Monday that police must tell indicted people of their rights before starting interrogations

Justices ruled 9-0 in favor of a Nebraska man who claimed he was tricked into talking to officers who came to his house to arrest him on drug charges.

The decision relieved civil liberties groups, which worried that the court was poised to roll back some of the protections in its landmark 1966 Miranda ruling which led to the familiar refrain beginning "You have the right to remain silent."

The article is a little short on specifics other than to say the suspect was "indicted." I'll give a WAG and infer that there has already been some sort of court proceeding in this man's case. So, with that in mind, I'll put my neck out and postulate that had the man not been indicted, and the police were investigating the same crime, and got the same confession, it would still be legal with no violation of Miranda Rights.

My wife's brother is a defense attorney. He has the most incredible bunch of stories about stupid cops (and prosecutors) who screw up the simplest cases with the most idiotic mistakes imaginable. He told me about a judge screaming redfaced in court at a dumbass prosecutor because the judge had to let an obvious murderer free. The cops and crime lab had made the stupidest errors from failing to Mirandize to leaving evidence laying around in a public area of the stationhouse.

A cop has to be dumb as a rock to think he can get away without mirandizing suspects. 99% of criminals are so incredibly stupid and incompetent that confessions are seldom needed to make good cases. Fortunately most cops do a good job. But like any other govt job it's almost impossible to get rid of the bad ones.

I wonder what argument the police used in court:

Ignorance?
They did not know the requirements for giving the Miranda warning.

Arrogance?
We are the police and don't have to abide by laws or established procedures.

The end justifies the means?
We should be able to do anything we want in order to get a statement.

Here's a synopsis;
Fellers v. United States
Docket Number: 02-6320
Abstract

Facts of the Case
Police offers went to the home of John Fellers to arrest him for his involvement in a drug trafficking conspiracy. When they got to his home, they told Fellers that they wanted to speak with him about his involvement in the conspiracy and his interaction with other people also thought to be involved. They did not read Fellers his Miranda rights, nor did they ask him any specific questions, but during the conversation Fellers told them that he had been associated with the named people and that he had used drugs. The police then took Fellers to jail, where they advised him of his Miranda rights. Fellers then repeated the statements he had made at his home indicating his involvement in the conspiracy.

At trial, Fellers argued that the statements made at his home could not be used because he had not been read his Miranda rights and because he had not been given access to an attorney, a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. He also argued that the statements made at the jail should be thrown out because they were the direct result of the un-Mirandized confession made at his home.

The district court ruled that the statements made at Fellers home were inadmissible but that the statements at the jail could be used. Fellers was convicted. On appeal, an Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. They agreed that the interview at the jail was admissible and extended the ruling to say that the statements made at his home were also admissible because they were not part of an interrogation.

I say SCOTUS erred (again). Fellers did NOT have to 're-confess' at the station house - AFTER he was marandized. And I'd bet that the cops so advised him of that fact.

NOTE: I'm not an attorney, but I did watch Law & Order SVU last night.

In the past, if the police questioned someone who was not in custody, there was generally no need to advise of Miranda rights. Like anything though, there were some exceptions. The operative word in the article is that the man was "indicted." However in the post by Condor51 there is still no mention of an "indictment." If the courts are now saying that officers must advise of the rights before any questioning then that is a HUGE expansion of Miranda rights. And at this point, I don't think that is what happened here. It all goes back to the fact that there was an "indictment."

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.