Posted on 04/25/2009 1:04:36 PM PDT by Bush Revolution
The Obama administration has argued for the end of the Michigan v Jackson ruling that requires police to provide an attorney for a suspect once one has been requested. They argue that the benefits are “meagre,” as the Telegraph puts it:
The effort to sweep aside the 23-year-old Michigan vs Jackson ruling is one of several moves by the new government to have dismayed civil rights groups. …
The Michigan vs Jackson ruling in 1986 established that, if a defendants have a lawyer or have asked for one to be present, police may not interview them until the lawyer is present.
Any such questioning cannot be used in court even if the suspect agrees to waive his right to a lawyer because he would have made that decision without legal counsel, said the Supreme Court.
However, in a current case that seeks to change the law, the US Justice Department argues that the existing rule is unnecessary and outdated.
The sixth amendment of the US constitution protects the right of criminal suspects to be “represented by counsel”, but the Obama regime argues that this merely means to “protect the adversary process” in a criminal trial.
The Justice Department, in a brief signed by Elena Kagan, the solicitor general, said the 1986 decision “serves no real purpose” and offers only “meagre benefits”.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
Thanks for the links.
Here is a quote from the link:
“The Jackson rule ensures that the right to assistance of counsel does not become a meaningless abstraction, easily lost when police confront the defendant outside the presence of counsel. Amici strongly support the Jackson rule for all persons. In this brief, however, amici present empirical evidence that the concerns undergirding the Jackson rule are magnified for particularly vulnerable defendants, including the mentally and developmentally disabled, juveniles, those lacking education, those with substance addiction, and the indigent. These defendants are especially vulnerable to police suggestion that counsel is unnecessary, many such defendants lack the capacity to appreciate the importance of counsel, and many exhibit characteristics that make them prone to give false confessions. If Jackson were overruled, incidents of false confessions would likely increase. And, while serious harm would be done to our criminal justice system as a whole, the most severe and tragic consequences would befall the most vulnerable defendants.”
The Marxist Onada has already stated, at least two times that were documented, that America and the Constitution are flawed. In other words the document means nothing to him except when its tenets get in His way.
There is no surprise to any of this. And be assured The Usurper and his crowd have a reason for wanting the right to counsel nullified.
At least four justices agree to hear the case and there has been a bit of controversy about Jackson. Because at least four justices agreed to hear the case there is a strong that the defendant in the case will have his conviction reversed which would lead me to think the court will come out in support of Jackson.
Calling for briefs will help the court look at outside views of Jackson. Having read all the briefs in the case. the arguments for upholding Jackson are much stronger than the couple supporting the overturning of Jackson.
I believe the members of the court will see, if they already don’t, that reversing Jackson will create a nightmare in the courts and a great deal of future difficult cases that will overload the courts even more than they already are.
True, four justices had to have agreed to hear his appeal in the first place and the Court more often reverses than affirms.. I still respectfully disagree with you though about what the Court’s call for briefs on the issue likely means. I think it’ll be 5-4 either way with the familiar scenario of Kennedy as the swing vote.
Well, if he can overturn the 2nd, 10th and 12th...
ping
Does this go for muslims/jihadists as well?
Didn’t think so.
Mr. Civil Rights... so-called ‘constitutional scholar and professor’.
Add this to my articles of impeachment, oath broken list.
Clue: http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/entertainment/watch/v16638977XW4J6fTF
You can’t believe that.
Oh.
If he waives his rights, still no interview?
So the right to waive is taken away even if he wants to talk?
Why would they do this... can I have a scenario?
He is a cypher, not human, defective.
There are more smart devious legal, socialist, islamic ways to go about what he’s doing... he doesn’t care.
He’s on strings, programmed, following orders.
We can’t apply common sense. If they stripped skin off and metal shone through, I wouldn’t be surprised (a la Westworld). How old is Baby Louise again... that first cloned kid?
Kidding about the last paragraph... I think.
If you don't want to talk to the police, keep your mouth shut.
You should be informed enough to know your rights without an officer having to "advise" you of them.
YEP!
Do you even know what a brief is?
Let's read this brief:
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/07-1529_Respondent.pdf
And why not the decision of the Louisiana Supreme Court?
http://www.lasc.org/opinions/2008/06KA1807.opn.pdf
I read all of them. The brief of the state of LA and the brief on behalf of the 10-11 state AGs is unpersuasive. They just want to be able to use coerced confessions to convict people for which there is no other evidence. If they were truly interested in seeking justice and not just convictions they would have no real reason to support the reversal of Jackson.
Are you telling me all those former federal prosecutors, former US Attorneys and William Sessions are simply looking for a way to let guilty people get off? It is absurd to think such a thing.
Do you really put that much trust in the honesty of cops, prosecutors and judges? If so, you are either one of those or hopelessly naive.
Read the briefs. He didn’t want to talk.
U.S. Challenges Michigan v. Jackson
From: MICHIGAN V. HARVEY, 494 U. S. 344 (1990)
"In Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U. S. 625 (1986), the Court established a prophylactic rule that once a criminal defendant invokes his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, a subsequent waiver of that right -- even if voluntary, knowing, and intelligent under traditional standards -- is presumed invalid if secured pursuant to police-initiated conversation."
I'm not sure which side I favor.
No, I don't think so.
Was it Thos. Jefferson who said "The price of freedom is eternal vigilence"?
Words to live by for today,that is certain.
Please cite where the “prophylactic rule” outlined in Jackson appears in the Constitution.
Please show me where the dealing of drugs there are considered illegal is banned in the Constitution.
If all cops and prosecutors were honest, Jackson would be unnecessary. The fact is too many of them are dishonest and really don’t care if they convict an innocent man. Because of that, Jackson is necessary.
To think otherwise is believing in a fantasy.
Then why did he talk?
As for "no other evidence."
"The state presented physical evidence, which included the undisputable presence of Montejo’s DNA under the victim’s 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 victim’s fingernails and a reference sample from the defendant. A scraping from the victim’s right hand contained only the victim’s DNA; a scraping from the victim’s left hand contained a mixture of the victim and defendant’s DNA. Dr. Sinha also concluded that the victim intentionally scratched defendant because sample characteristics ruled out DNA transfer by coincidental contact."
As for "didn't want to talk:"
Montejo was interviewed by police from about 4:30 p.m. until about 11 p.m. on September 6, 2002, and again between approximately 3:00 and 4:00 a.m. on September 7, 2002. The centerpiece of the state’s case was approximately four hours of this videotaped police interrogation during which Montejo slowly made increasingly incriminating statements until he finally admitted that he shot the victim who had unexpectedly returned home and interrupted Montejo’s burglary.16 On September 23, 2002, indigent defense counsel moved to suppress these statements contending that they were made involuntarily.17 At hearings held on April 20 and June 1, 2004, Detective John Morse18 testified that he first encountered Montejo at the Gretna Police station where Montejo, after being verbally Mirandized, consented to accompany him to the St. Tammany Sheriff’s Office Criminal Enforcement Building to be interviewed.19 In St. Tammany, Montejo was repeatedly Mirandized, signed several rights waivers,20 and was interrogated by Detective Morse and Detective Willis Wade Major.21 Both detectives testified at the suppression hearings22 that Montejo understood his rights, was not intoxicated, showed no sign of mental defect, was not promised or threatened anything, spoke to them voluntarily, and freely waived his rights.
The videos of the interrogation on September 6, 2002, up until Montejo invoked his right to counsel at about 10 p.m., show the following. The video begins a little before 7 p.m.23 The defendant was shirtless24 and smoking25 as he related his first version of the crime, in which he claimed that his only involvement was in driving Moore to the victim’s home and leaving him there without knowing that Moore was going to rob and kill the victim. Confronted with the potential that his DNA might be found inside the home,26 Montejo related his second version of the crime. He said that the victim was not home when he arrived at about 5 p.m. with Moore, who told him that they could wait inside. After about 10 minutes, Moore started ransacking the residence, so Montejo left.27 He became disoriented and was briefly lost in the neighborhood. After he regained his bearings, he saw Moore drive away in the victim’s car. Montejo attempted to answer the detectives’ follow-up questions, but abandoned this story for a third version, after detectives suggested that Moore would blame Montejo and confronted him with the possibility that the forensic evidence would prove that the victim scratched his neck or that he was present when the murder weapon was fired.28 In the third version, Montejo did not leave when Moore (who was wearing gloves) ransacked the home. Instead, he and Moore hid when the victim arrived. Moore struck the victim over the back of the head with the gun and Montejo tried to run. The victim turned and flailed wildly, scratching Montejo, and Moore shot the victim, who remained standing. As Montejo fled, he heard a second shot. Montejo became briefly lost in the neighborhood and saw Moore drive away in the victim’s car. In response to demands for corroborating physical evidence, such as the location of the murder weapon or any stolen property,29 and again confronted with forensic evidence,30 Montejo invoked his right to counsel but quickly retracted his request as follows:
Montejo: “I would like to answer no more questions unless I am in front of a lawyer.”
Captain Hall:31 “Good enough.” (exits)
Montejo: “Now, . . .”
Detective Morse:32 “You are under arrest for first degree murder.”33
Montejo: “. . . now, I know you aren’t that bad a people and all . . .”
(both detectives stand and turn toward exit)
Detective Major: (interrupting) “Dude, you don’t want to talk to us no more, you want a lawyer, right? I trusted you and you let me down.”
Montejo: “No, come here, come here.”
Detective Major: “No, no, I can’t.”
Montejo: “No, come here . . .”
Detective Major: “No, you’ve asked for an attorney, and you are getting your charge. And the shame of it is . . .”
Montejo: “I don’t want no attorney.”
The video recorder was turned off at this point and did not begin again until approximately 10 minutes later. All detectives testified at the suppression hearings that, after the exchange quoted above, they terminated the interview and left the room. At trial, Detective Major testified that after the tape was turned off, Montejo “started to literally beg us to come back into the room to continue the interview.” The detectives then met with their supervisors for ten minutes to determine whether they could legally continue the interview. Detective Major testified that during this time, Montejo “continued to ask us to come back in, come back in.” Detective Morse testified that he briefly spoke to Montejo during the unrecorded period to verify that he wished to continue the interview in the absence of legal counsel.34 The district court reviewed the tapes, found the detectives’ testimony credible, and found that Montejo immediately revoked his request for legal counsel. After Montejo invoked and revoked his right to counsel, defendant was again read his Miranda rights and signed written waivers of those rights. In the video, the detectives confirmed with Montejo, who was visibly upset,35 that he was not interviewed during the preceding untaped interval and that he understood his rights and wished to continue the interview in the absence of counsel. Montejo then retracted his claims that Moore killed the victim, and told a fourth version of the crime as a botched burglary.36 He said that Moore persuaded him to burglarize the victim’s home, which he believed would be unoccupied, unlocked, and full of money, and that he agreed to do so because his rent was due. However, he found the victim’s gun inside the home and, when the victim came home and surprised him, Montejo hit him in the head with the gun, warned him to stay back, fired a warning shot, and when that failed, shot and killed the victim, before firing the weapon into the couch to un-cock it, and throwing the gun in the lake. After detectives confronted him with the fact that two vehicles left the crime scene together, Montejo retracted this story and told a fifth version of the crime, in which he blamed a person he knew only as “D.P.,” an African-American male from the Fischer projects, whom he claimed would be impossible to locate. Montejo said he was introduced to D.P. by Moore, who wanted defendant and D.P. to rob the victim. Montejo agreed because his rent was overdue so he met D.P. at the Rally’s and they went to the victim’s home. After detectives confronted Montejo with the implausibility of this story, they terminated the interview and the video stops. The defendant was arrested and transported to jail.
And there we have it folks.
I think we all know why you support the extraconstitutional rule outlined in Jackson.
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.