|
Guest
|
|
(11 of 11)
May 26, 2008 3:26 PM
|
RLT:
Actually, the 5th Amendment right came before the "Miranda" case. As a Constitutional Amendment it stands alone and seperate from a Court case. This case was important because it was a "precedent" setting case, meaning that it can be cited in court to back a person's case.
I am convinced the Det.s always "Mirandize" their suspects, for to not do so would be a "crap shoot", because the argument Surf stated about finding, readily available evidence, is a back up measure when the Police mess up and don't "mirandize" someone.
Just for everyone's information the Police can now hold someone 48 hours without questioning, without an attorney and without being charged. Just another change the new "anti-terrorist" laws have brought us. It used to be 24 hours.
HT
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
(10 of 11)
May 26, 2008 3:16 PM
|
Surf:
Right again. If the Police can prove that the evidence would have been "readily obtainable" through another source, then the evidence can be admissable.
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
(9 of 11)
May 26, 2008 3:15 PM
|
Surf:
Excellent post as usual. I am positive the Det.s "mirandize" the suspects before they question them, because to not do so would threaten all the work they had done on a case up to that point. I am sure it has been editied out.
To the person who said there are alot of African Americans and hispanics. Miami has a huge hispanic population and, whether you like it or not, African Americans represent the highest number of individuals in prison. Understand, however, this show is but a "small sample", look up Statistics for a Definition of that term.
Wel done Surf!!!
Love ya!
HT
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
(8 of 11)
May 26, 2008 10:08 AM
|
supergrrl: I didn't disagree with filmstudent. I'm sure there is quite a lot of editing done on these shows in the interest of time. I certainly didn't mean to start an argument. I will say however based on my husband's 30 years as a cop that an actual signed miranda is not required but it does have to be documented in the police report that is completed. I will say that I, if a detective or prosecutor, would want to get one signed just to be on the safe side. A local judge told a defense attorney in one trial that my husband was involved with that "if it's documented, then it happened" (regarding the warning). Further, my point was there are circumstances where being mirandized is not required. The warning itself does not apply to statements a person makes before they are arrested or taken into custody. The warning does not apply to statements made "spontaneously," or to statements made after the Miranda warnings have been given. This can be a very intricate point in a courtroom. The burden of proof is on the prosecutor not the defendant. There are many variations of the Miranda and all are legal as long as the basic "rights" are outlined. Some are very intricate based on the case and to cover all contingencies.
Postscript: I forgot to add that even if a suspect has not been mirandized, that doesn't mean the case will be automatically dismissed. If the police and/or prosecutor can prove the evidence would have been obtained without the suspect's "cooperation", then the case may move forward anyway.
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
(7 of 11)
May 26, 2008 12:14 AM
|
I have to agree with Filmstudent that this part is likely edited out. Each person placed under arrest has to be given his Miranda rights, and before he/she speaks with police, the person under arrest must specifically waive their right to an attorney and to self-incrimination. A written waiver is generally signed by the suspect too. If the suspect invokes any of his rights, the police cannot engage in any behavior (either outright interrogation or even conversation) that may lead to the suspect making any damaging statements. Once the suspect invokes their rights, the police can only talk to the suspect if the suspect re-initiates the conversation.
Violating the Miranda rights is the easiest and quickest way to get evidence excluded so I can't imagine that any of these detectives are going to work their booties off to get their suspect in custody and then blow it by not giving the Miranda rights and getting a Miranda waiver. I'd have to imagine that part is just edited out of the show we see. It makes sense because what television-watching American couldn't recite the Miranda rights verbatim at this point anyway?
If a person is just being brought in for questioning, meaning they are free to terminate the interview at anytime, then a Miranda warning is not necessary.
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
(6 of 11)
May 24, 2008 8:41 AM
|
Roadlesstaken: I'm not a lawyer but I would assume so. There are certain circumstances when you can be questioned WITHOUT being mirandized. I'd have to check my husband's notes when he went through the training. Will get back with you.
With regard to the show: perhaps some of the defendants were read their rights and it just wasn't shown. Just a thought.
|
|
|
Posts:
16
From:
Baltimore, MD
Registered:
11/7/06
|
|
(5 of 11)
May 24, 2008 8:06 AM
|
"My question is this: Don't person's being arrested still have to be read their rights? Why is it that in each case on this show not one defendants requests an attorney be there during questioning?"
I'm sure that the detectives in the show read the Miranda rights to people that they are arresting but the producers are just not including in the final program. Otherwise we would be watching a lot of boring Miranda rights statements from the detectives in every episode!
|
|
|
Posts:
234
Registered:
1/3/08
|
|
(4 of 11)
May 24, 2008 12:23 AM
|
So the Miranda warning essentially protects an individuals 5th Amendment Constitutional rights?
The 5th amendment -
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
(3 of 11)
May 23, 2008 11:46 PM
|
This is just a bit of history regarding the Miranda warning:
The Constitution reserves many rights for those suspected of crime. One of the fears of the Framers was that the government could act however it wished by simply saying an individual was a suspected criminal. Many of the rights in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, such as habeas corpus, the right to remain silent, and the right to an attorney, are designed to ensure that those accused of a crime are assured of those rights.
Police were able to take advantage of the fact that not everyone knows their rights by heart. In fact, it is likely that most citizens could name a few of their rights as accused criminals, but not all of them. The police's position was that if the accused, for example, spoke about a crime without knowing that they did not need to, that it was the person's fault for not invoking that right, even if they did not know, or did not remember, that they had that right.
This was the crux of the issue in Miranda v Arizona. In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was accused of kidnapping and raping an 18-year-old, mildly retarded woman. He was brought in for questioning, and confessed to the crime. He was not told that he did not have to speak or that he could have a lawyer present. At trial, Miranda's lawyer tried to get the confession thrown out, but the motion was denied. In 1966, the case came in front of the Supreme Court. The Court ruled that the statements made to the police could not be used as evidence, since Miranda had not been advised of his rights.
Since then, before any pertinent questioning of a suspect is done, the police have been required to recite the Miranda warning. The statement, reproduced below, exists in several forms, but all have the key elements: the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. These are also often referred to as the "Miranda rights." When you have been read your rights, you are said to have been "Mirandized."
Note that one need not be Mirandized to be arrested. There is a difference between being arrested and being questioned. Also, basic questions, such as name, address, and Social Security number do not need to be covered by a Miranda warning. The police also need not Mirandize someone who is not a suspect in a crime.
As for Ernesto Miranda, his conviction was thrown out, though he did not become a free man. The police had other evidence that was independent of the confession, and when Miranda was tried a second time, he was convicted again. After release from prison, Miranda was killed in a barroom brawl in 1976.
|
|
|
Posts:
2
From:
detroit
Registered:
5/23/08
|
|
(2 of 11)
May 23, 2008 10:55 PM
|
And they probably dont know any better to request a attorney or be read their rights!
Those detectives should NOT be able to coach them to admitting or lying or give them false promises either!!
The one detective from detroit Moises Jimenez is crooked as all hell he was demoted before due to his unprofessional behavior and false reports!! I agree with you!
|
|
|
Posts:
1
From:
chicago
Registered:
5/23/08
|
|
(1 of 11)
May 23, 2008 7:10 PM
|
|
My question is this: Don't person's being arrested still have to be read their rights? Why is it that in each case on this show not one defendants requests an attorney be there during questioning? It just seems interesting that since almost every person being arrested in this show is either black or hispanic, and NONE OF THEM REQUEST A LAWYER? They all just want to trust the detectives
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
