Skip to main content

View Diary: BREAKING: Miranda decision, or why it sucks to be a JoSCOTUS (65 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That's what today's decision did. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ShempLugosi, Darmok

    It said, "Police, you no longer have to get them to say 'I waive my right to remain silent.'  Just keep asking questions."

    •  Agreed. I argued that a decision either way (0+ / 0-)

      would have the same result, in terms of greatly changing Miranda and precedent supporting it.

    •  the real question is (0+ / 0-)

      what suffices to invoke?

      I aint sayin nutting?

      I formally invoke my right under the fifth amendment?

      Don't talk to me?

      I'm assuming it would be enough to just say, I ain't talking, but you never know sometimes.

      It seems like this case could have been better resolved on its facts and limited to that only. The guy never invoked, and he was affirmatively answering questions throughout the process. Not some broad changing of Miranda to require affirmative spoken assertions of the right.

      They are just inviting new cases dealing with a whole host of special circumstances. What if the person is mute? What equals invoking of your rights in this respect?

      •  "I ain't talkin' to you." (0+ / 0-)

        "I ain't talkin' right now."

        Etc.

        •  Sotomayor: (0+ / 0-)

          At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so. Those results, in my view, find no basis in Miranda or our subsequent cases and are inconsistent with the fair-trial principles on which those precedents are grounded.

          That's a key, the way I see it. It is unbalanced.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site