Posted on 06/22/2009 7:08:41 PM PDT by Libloather
Court to tackle clarity of Miranda warnings again
By Michael J. Sniffen, Associated Press Writer
Mon Jun 22, 5:36 pm ET
WASHINGTON – "You have the right to remain silent." Most people only hear those words while watching cop shows on TV. They usually zone out for the rest of the now familiar Miranda warning to people under arrest.
But in the real world, the Supreme Court is still listening to the words that follow. It agreed Monday to hear another case over just how explicit that phrasing must be.
In its landmark 1966 Miranda v. Arizona ruling, the high court set out to protect the constitutional right of people not to incriminate themselves once in custody. They dealt a blow to those officers who bullied or beat false confessions out of suspects. The justices said the police have to tell defendants they can have a lawyer represent them, even if they can't afford one.
**SNIP**
Along the way, the justices made clear they don't insist that every police officer use precisely the same words, so long as the important details are clear, even to people with no legal training or little or no schooling.
Monday they agreed to examine what the Tampa, Fla., police told Kevin Dewayne Powell after his arrest on Aug. 10, 2004. Powell was convicted of possessing a firearm. As a convicted felon, he wasn't allowed to have one. Powell told Tampa officer Salvatore Augeri he bought the weapon "off the street" for $150 for his protection.
But the Florida Supreme Court overturned the conviction on grounds the Tampa police didn't adequately convey to Powell that he was allowed to have a lawyer with him during questioning.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Let it be a lesson to us all: if you or I were being arrested on trumped-up charges, be aware that it is your Constitutional right not to have to say a word. It would be advisable to say nothing to any governmental authority without an attorney present.
Leftists love legislation from the bench.
The required Miranda Right statement was invented out of thin air by the court.
On January 31, 1976, Miranda participated in a card game at the La Amapola Bar. A violent fight broke out and Miranda received a mortal knife wound; he was pronounced dead on arrival at Good Samaritan Hospital. He was 34 years old.
Had he been in jail where he belonged, he might still be alive today.
Origin of Miranda: http://www.usconstitution.net/miranda.html
Would not matter to me if I was on the jury.
Wonder if the read him his Miranda rites?
Wonder if they read him his Miranda rites?
In Obamaworld, I still want to be informed of my rights. If we don’t know our rights, we don’t have any. Doesn’t matter if you’re guilty as sin or innocent. We are supposed to have a system of being presumed innocent until proven guilty in a Court of law, but in Obamaworld, it may well turn out to be the other way around.
It would matter to you if you were the accused.
That's not entirely correct. Police arrest people on outstanding warrants all the time and don't read them their rights. The officer merely transports the person to the jail and has no further involvement.
Unfortunately our legal system, of which I was a part of for many years, has turned into a high-tech railroading with the guilty going free and the innocent paying the price. It’s messed up.
I can't speak for the other poster but that sure doesn't apply to me, the Miranda decision was insane, it was part of that madness that took over America during those decades.
Best thing is to shut up when arrested. With or without Miranda, you are not required to speak.
Do you think every arrestee is guilty? Do you think every defendant is a scumbag? Then you need to think again. What good is the Constitution if your rights are not upheld.
Police only read Miranda warnings if they intend to question the suspect and need that information to be admissible. If they don’t intend to question them the warnings are unnecessary.
You somehow think because you don’t commit crimes you will never be in the chair of the accused? PLENTY of innocent people find themselves in that chair. God bless you if you never do, but if you do, I hope you have someone that respects your rights and doesn’t act like you are a scumbag for being accused. Rights protect the innocent. On occasion guilty men benefit too but the innocent depend on rights.
You sure make some stupid assumptions about me.
Wrong, Fifth Amendment , try reading it some time. The court will side with the man and toss the verdict. Same as the last case but more to the point. I think they will drive home the do not question at all.
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.