Skip to comments.
Michigan v. Jackson overruled!
Supreme Court of the United Stats ^
| 05-26-2009
| Antonin Scalia
Posted on 05/26/2009 9:15:52 AM PDT by freedomwarrior998
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-84 next last
To: metmom
Was there a language barrier? That's how Miranda got written in the first place.
Just askin'
61
posted on
05/26/2009 4:27:27 PM PDT
by
pray4liberty
(http://www.foundersvalues.com/)
To: pray4liberty
62
posted on
05/26/2009 4:41:33 PM PDT
by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
To: freedomwarrior998
63
posted on
05/26/2009 6:02:23 PM PDT
by
Christian4Bush
(Washington couldnt tell a lie. Clinton couldnt tell the truth. Bawny Fwank cant tell the difference.)
To: freedomwarrior998
And people think MIRANDA RIGHTS are great. WRONG. It is more difficult to put truly guilty people in jail. Do your research and history folks, and realize the truth.
64
posted on
05/26/2009 7:27:29 PM PDT
by
bayoublazer
(Conservative, by reasons of higher cognitive skills)
To: metmom
This is America, you are free to disagree with the courts anytime you wish, however if a cop does it he could be looking at losing his job and/or going to jail. If you disagree with the decision in this case fine with me but this one is settled.
To: org.whodat
The Miranda rights don’t tell cops they can’t ask any further questions.
As a matter of fact, since it tells the person charged that they have a right to have an attorney present at any questioning, it seems kind of presumed that there will be more questioning.
If the person waives their right to that, that is their business.
66
posted on
05/27/2009 5:05:08 AM PDT
by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
To: ExTxMarine
He CHOSE or else! That could have well been weeks or months before; in addition, the suspect--who was interrogated and given Miranda--is now a defendant, who has been arraigned and assigned a lawyer. He may well not know that his lawyer is entitled to be present at these interrogations, or that he's entitled anything else than to be assigned an attorney, as he was at the arraignment.
Anyhow, I think it's bad policy but it appears, at least for the time being, I'm on the losing end of this argument. It troubles me, however, to see such a low-cost rule that helps protect the rights of the accused jettisoned for little reason.
To: metmom
The supreme court says in this case you, the cops, cannot question a person once he has requested an attorney, once the court has said he has an attorney and after you have read him his rights. Without permission of his attorney. If you do any information obtained will be trashed.
You can say what was before this case all you wish, it will not change what they just decided.
To: Stentor
Never talk to the police. Better advice would be never rob and murder elderly people.
69
posted on
05/27/2009 6:38:34 AM PDT
by
Tribune7
(Better to convert enemies to allies than to destroy them)
To: Tribune7
Better advice would be never rob and murder elderly people.Never talk to police.
70
posted on
05/27/2009 8:23:52 AM PDT
by
Stentor
To: Publius Valerius
Er, what do you mean “expanding police powers”? All the Supreme Court did was affirm the existing law. It expands nothing.
In fact, IMHO, it appears this was bogus argument in the first place and should never had been heard. If taken to its logical conclusion, the result would be that anything a defendant says in the absense of an attorney is inadmissable. I would say that would put a serious impediment in the way of convicting admitted felons—you know murderers, child rapists and the like.
I’m curious, Publius, do you think criminal law should err on the side of protecting society or the individual—especially individuals who confess to horrible crimes and then decide to recant on the basis of advice given by a clever lawyer?
Personally, I’m more concerned with what’s going in The Usurper’s administration, with respect to curtailing individual rights, than that frivolous lawsuit.
71
posted on
05/27/2009 9:10:34 AM PDT
by
dools007
To: dools007
All the Supreme Court did was affirm the existing law. What makes you think this? The Court overturned the holding in Michigan v. Jackson. This is about as far from maintaining the status quo as we can get.
If taken to its logical conclusion, the result would be that anything a defendant says in the absense of an attorney is inadmissable.
No, it just means that the police cannot initiate an interrogation once a defendant has requested an attorney. If the defendant wants to freely confess to the crime in the absence of a lawyer, that's his business, and nothing under the old rule prevented that.
Im curious, Publius, do you think criminal law should err on the side of protecting society or the individualespecially individuals who confess to horrible crimes and then decide to recant on the basis of advice given by a clever lawyer?
Individual.
To: Former Proud Canadian
You are correct on numbers on the Supremes. HOWEVER, at this time, any action in that area would be for the socialists to ADD more for their benefit. The stupid republicans will not get back in power for years. I seriously doubt that we will have another republican president in my life time. I am 60. I just think that with the adding of all the illegals voting in the future and all the give away programs, people are going for the free stuff and to hell with the country.
73
posted on
05/27/2009 2:01:06 PM PDT
by
RetiredArmy
(Right wing military retiree. Proudly on DHLS hit list!!!!!)
To: RetiredArmy
If you are 60, I'm sure you remember the 1964 election. Conservatives and republicans were devastated. They came back the next election cycle.
In Canada, not so long ago, the Conservative party was reduced to two members of parliament out of 265. They now form the government. Don't despair, people will realize what they have done, the kind of man they have elected. The 2010 election will be very interesting. This too shall pass.
74
posted on
05/27/2009 2:07:34 PM PDT
by
Former Proud Canadian
(How do I change my screen name now that we have the most conservative government in the world?)
To: SeaHawkFan
The state presented physical evidence, which included the undisputable presence of Montejos DNA under the victims fingernails. Dr. Dudhir Sinha, president and laboratory director of ReliaGene, testified as an expert in molecular biology and DNA analysis that he tested scrapings from beneath the victims fingernails and a reference sample from the defendant. A scraping from the victims right hand contained only the victims DNA; a scraping from the victims left hand contained a mixture of the victim and defendants DNA.
Actually innocent huh? Doesn't sound that way to me.
To: Springman; sergeantdave; cyclotic; netmilsmom; RatsDawg; PGalt; FreedomHammer; queenkathy; ...
If you would like to be added or dropped from the Michigan ping list, please freepmail me.
76
posted on
05/27/2009 2:31:13 PM PDT
by
grellis
(I am Jill's overwhelming sense of disgust.)
To: messierhunter
You didn't read the entire petition, nor the amicus brief filed by a large number of former federal judges and prosecutors, did you?
I didn't say he was innocent, but that the facts might result in a conclusion of actual innocence, and that there were many irregularities. Did you notice that the presence of his DNA was consistent with the story he told the cops. It's not like he claimed he was never with the guy. There was also an absence of DNA in places one would have expected if he was the killer.
To: messierhunter
And BTW, please cite my entire statement when questioning it. What you did was intellectually dishonest. Then again, maybe you are a LEA or prosecutor.
To: Former Proud Canadian
I agree about 64. However, these are very, very different times. We did not have the communist trying to get 12-20 million illegals voting. We did not have 50% of Americans sitting on their good for nothing lazy asses with their hands stuck out wanting free stuff, free everything for their vote. These are very different times. I don't see them getting any better. I have only seen them get worse in these past 35 or so years with this crap. You could have NEVER convinced me in the 1980s or even 1990s that the stinking 1960s radicals would win the White House and a complete and utter communist would become president. Win back the House, maybe, doubtful, but maybe. Senate, forget it. President, who do we have? Palin? While I like her, I just cannot see her alone winning over Obama and free stuff. As much as I will support here, I think it will be a loss. The republicans simply have lost their way and have no vision except being dimocrat lite.
79
posted on
05/27/2009 2:56:04 PM PDT
by
RetiredArmy
(Right wing military retiree. Proudly on DHLS hit list!!!!!)
To: SeaHawkFan
but that the facts might result in a conclusion of actual innocence
BS. The DNA evidence was as damning as the letter.
Did you notice that the presence of his DNA was consistent with the story he told the cops.
Which one of his many stories? The one he told right after the cops mentioned the scratch on his neck? He has no credibility, his story changed dramatically minute to minute, and most of the stories didn't even involve an explanation for that DNA. It makes no sense, absolutely none, why HIS DNA would be under the victim's fingernails unless HE was the attacker. If you're being threatened with a gun, do you "accidentally" scratch so hard you tear skin from the poor unarmed sap standing off to the side, or do you try everything in your power to get the gun away from the attacker?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-84 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson