Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  It's big, because of the default rule it sets (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aspe4, skrekk, Darmok

    "You haven't invoked your rights until you explicitly invoked your rights."

    •  But (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Adam B, unruli, sullivanst

      that's always been the case with respect the counsel request.  It may be illogical to have to say you want to remain silent, but it's not that onerous to say, "I don't want to talk."  

      How we got here, the Powell Manifesto: http://old.mediatransparency.org/story.php?storyID=21

      by Paleo on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 09:44:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  exactly (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib

        i just finished reading the court's decision and it plows absolutely no new ground.  if you want to remain silent, great.  don't answer the police officer's questions.  if you want the police to stop questioning you, however, you need only unequivocally say that you don't want to talk/answer questions, at which point the police MUST stop questioning you.  this has been the law of the land re: request for counsel for many many years.

        what i find interesting about this decision is that four justices could dissent with a straight face.  the dissent is unpersuasive, impractical, and contradicts a long line of uncontroversial precedent.

      •  also remember (0+ / 0-)

        that there is neither claim nor evidence that the guy was coerced into speaking.  you cannot coerce a suspect, even if you read them their miranda rights.  in other words, reading them miranda is not a license to coerce.

        so, again, all the guy had to do was either (1) remain silent, or (2) say "i don't want to talk"

        he did neither and the police continued to question him in a non-coercive manner.  that the guy chose to answer some of the questions is on him.  the police did not violate this guy's rights.  to conclude otherwise would so hamper the police that they would never be able to conduct an investigation.

      •  Not by itself it's not, but weigh it (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        skrekk

        against the dissent:

        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.

        That is so obviously biased. How is that explained?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site