I heard a discussion on Fox last night about Couey's confession being thrown out because the cops didn't stop interrogating him when he asked for a lawyer.
Interestingly, the guest said this issue needs to be revisited before the Supreme Court. The Miranda ruling came down at a time when police were alleged to be coercing confessions (I didn't believe that). There is NO allegation of coercion in this case. The ruling has backfired by letting guilty persons go free on a technicality. The court's interest should be the TRUTH, not technical little details of when a lawyer took control of the information flow.
Question: How would this get to the Supreme Court? Can the government appeal contrary judicial rulings in criminal cases? I always thought only the defendant could do so.
They can throw his confession out, but he would have no chance in hell of proving he didn't do it, since they found her body literally at his back door step. We're fortunate he was that stupid.
sw
How would this get to the Supreme Court? Can the government appeal contrary judicial rulings in criminal cases? I always thought only the defendant could do so.
The issue could get there 2 ways:
1. a judge rules the confession IS admissible, the defendant is convicted, and the defendant raises the issue.
2. This probably varies by state, but in Florida, the state is allowed to contest some pre-trial suppression rulings.
But you're right, the defendant certainly has more leeway in contesting these things, compared to the state. Mostly, once a defendant is acquitted, there is nothing the state can do.