Posted on 12/12/2005 5:45:57 AM PST by aculeus
A statement that a 21-year-old Great Falls man made to police in March, describing how he stabbed his mother to death, cannot be used against him, a Fairfax County judge has ruled, because detectives started their interrogation with this question:
"Do you know why we're here?"
That inquiry, by Fairfax homicide Detective David W. Allen, elicited this answer from Jayant Kadian:
"Yeah, because I stabbed my mom in the neck."
Fairfax Circuit Court Judge Kathleen H. MacKay ruled last week that Kadian should have first been told of his rights to remain silent and have an attorney present. The detective's question "makes no particular sense except as an attempt to [elicit] an incriminating response," MacKay wrote. As such, the judge concluded, everything that came after was "unwarned" and must be suppressed.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I can understand the judge's decision, though. I don't really think Miranda rights are completely necessary, but since the Supreme Court ruled otherwise, the judge's hands were pretty much tied.
I disagree with the judge. There is no way that any detective could have predicted that the first thing out of this murder's mouth would be a confession.
Least they could do is give the rest of us a notice about when and where the court is going to release scum like this.
I, too, disagree with the judge. He was asked a question to determine if he was aware of where he was.
The man answered the questions, "yes." Then he gave a voluntary confession.
Surely voluntary confessions are accepted as evidence. If not, every criminal should immediately confess their crimes, before saying anything else. Instead of saying hello, come in, help me, call 911, they should just immediately confess. They'd all get off because they didn't get miranda'd.
duh!
So, if a police officer pulls me over, and the first words he says are "do you know why I pulled you over", I just have to confess to any crimes I've committed and I get off scott-free?
Because that is what the police said to me when they pulled me over, and I never thought about confessing.
This probably won't work for getting out of tickets for speeding, because they don't use a confession from you for that anyway, just the evidence they have already collected; and because speeding isn't something you get arrested for.
Might be something a drunk driver could try though. If you say "because I'm stinking drunk" and unsuspecting officer might make the mistake of arresting you without doing any tests, and then later you can get off the charge apparently because you weren't read your rights before he asked.
I'm thinking they asked the question because it was a conversation starter, and it was expected that the criminal would say "no". How DID the police know he had stabbed his wife?
I bet they were trying to be polite, rather than bursting in, cuffing the guy right off, and reading him his rights.
Or maybe it WAS meant to solicit damaging evidence, because they didn't have enough information yet to get an arrest warrent.
If they didn't have a warrent, and didn't know he was a suspect, do they still have to read him his rights before they ask him questions?
Was he in custody at the time they asked him that question? If not, why was a warning required?
I am sure there must be more to the arguments. If the suspect came in voluntarily to assist in the investigation (which can be inferred unless he was arrested), than he was there as a "person of interest." Of course, if they had to ask if he knew why he was there, then I suppose he did not intend to be there.
If he was arrested and brought to the station against his will to answer questions, then I guess our legal system wins again.
This is the sort of rote application of the law that results in injustice, this time to the state. The purpose of the 5th amendment is to prevent compelled testimony against oneself. There is NO sense that the suspect was in any way compelled to say anything, much less to confess to the crime. It is time to revisit Miranda.
If he would have siad - yea, because my knife slipped and I stabbed my mother in the neck - could he then use that as evidence to his innocence?
Sombody needs to stab a government approved and tested gag rag down the throat of this judge.
Two tragedies here. The mom being killed, and the judge's decision.
Amusing to watch everyone on this thread arguing in favor of judicial activism. [snort]
Boy, the judge is a woman.
I belatedly noticed.
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.