Home | Community | Message Board

Magic-Mushrooms-Shop.com
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Kraken Kratom Shop: Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1
Offlinech1ck3n.s0up
Troubled Loner
Male User Gallery


Registered: 10/03/08
Posts: 2,573
Loc: Hunting Fungi
Last seen: 2 years, 9 months
Supreme Court: Suspects must invoke right to remain silent in interrogations
    #18660732 - 08/04/13 08:58 PM (10 years, 9 months ago)

Check out the article below.

In sum, a suspect was questioned for almost three hours. He said nothing in that entire time, except for one word:

Quote:


Detectives persisted in what one called mostly a "monologue" for about two hours and 45 minutes, until one asked Thompkins whether he believed in God. At a follow-up question -- "Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?" -- Thompkins answered "Yes" and looked away.




Quote:


The statement was used against him, along with other testimony, and Thompkins was convicted of killing Samuel Morris outside a strip mall in Southfield, Mich.




Quote:


If Thompkins wanted to remain silent, he could have said nothing in response to [the detective's] questions, or he could have unambiguously involved his Miranda rights and ended the interrogation," wrote Kennedy, who was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.




So, how does one properly, and according to the letter of the law, "unambiguously involve [invoke?] their Miranda right to remain silent, and end an interrogation?

What statement works? Would the statement in my sig do the job?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/01/AR2010060102114.html


Supreme Court: Suspects must invoke right to remain silent in interrogations

Network News
X Profile
View More Activity
TOOLBOX
Resize
Print
E-mail
Reprints
By Robert Barnes
Wednesday, June 2, 2010

Criminal suspects should speak up if they want to preserve their right to remain silent, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday. Conservative justices ruled for police in the latest test of the court's famous Miranda rule and shifted the burden to suspects to invoke their right to refuse questioning.
This Story

    Suspects must speak up to keep Miranda protection
    Court: Ex-Somali official can be sued
    Court to hear case on status of medical residents

View All Items in This Story

The court ruled 5 to 4 that a Michigan defendant who incriminated himself in a fatal shooting by saying one word after nearly three hours of questioning had given up his right to silence, and that the statement could be used against him at trial.
ad_icon

"Where the prosecution shows that a Miranda warning was given and that it was understood by the accused, an accused's uncoerced statement establishes an implied waiver of the right to remain silent," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority.

The decision prompted the most vigorous dissent of new Justice Sonia Sotomayor's young career at the court.

"Today's decision turns Miranda upside down," wrote Sotomayor, who accused the majority of casting aside judicial restraint. "Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent -- which, counter-intuitively, requires them to speak. 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."

Thanks to television cop shows and movies, the Miranda warning may be one of the court's best-known creations. But ever since the 1966 ruling in Miranda v. Arizona, the court has been defining how the right to remain silent and to counsel protects a suspect, and limits prosecutors' use of anything said during interrogation. Most recently, it has provoked controversy about whether terrorism suspects should be afforded such rights.

In the case before the court, suspect Van Chester Thompkins was read his rights and, at police request, repeated some of them out loud. But he did not sign an offered waiver of the right, and he did not acknowledge that he was willing to talk. Nor did he say that he wanted the questioning to stop.

Detectives persisted in what one called mostly a "monologue" for about two hours and 45 minutes, until one asked Thompkins whether he believed in God. At a follow-up question -- "Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?" -- Thompkins answered "Yes" and looked away.

The statement was used against him, along with other testimony, and Thompkins was convicted of killing Samuel Morris outside a strip mall in Southfield, Mich.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit said that Thompkins's prolonged silence "offered a clear and unequivocal message to the officers: Thompkins did not wish to waive his rights."

But Kennedy said it was not clear enough. "If Thompkins wanted to remain silent, he could have said nothing in response to [the detective's] questions, or he could have unambiguously involved his Miranda rights and ended the interrogation," wrote Kennedy, who was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

"The fact that Thompkins made a statement about three hours after receiving a Miranda warning does not overcome the fact that he engaged in a course of conduct indicating waiver."

Kennedy said the court's new rule -- in the case of Berghuis v. Thompkins -- was an extension of the logic in a previous case that said a suspect must affirmatively assert his right to counsel. The court essentially agreed with the position of the government against Thompkins, advanced by Solicitor General Elena Kagan, President Obama's pending nominee to the Supreme Court.

But Sotomayor, a former prosecutor who some had speculated might be less protective of the rights of suspects than other liberals on the court, called the decision "a substantial retreat from the protection against compelled self-incrimination." She was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

It is unclear how often such situations arise. But Jonathan Abram, a Washington lawyer who filed a brief with the court on behalf of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, called the ruling "significant."

"Until now, suspects walked into interrogation rooms with their rights intact," Abram wrote in an e-mail. "If the police thought a person had waived those rights, they had to prove waiver . . . Miranda has been eroded. Again."

Kent Scheidegger of the California-based Criminal Justice Legal Foundation said the court recognized the "practical realities that the police face in dealing with suspects" and placed reasonable limits on an "artificial rule."

"The rule that really is in the Constitution, that no person may be compelled to be a witness against himself, is not changed by today's decision," Scheidegger said in a written statement.


» This Story:Read +
More on the Supreme Court
[The Supreme Court]
The Supreme Court

Full coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court, including key cases and nominations to the nation's highest court.
[Guantanamo Prison]
Guantanamo Prison

Full coverage of the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, including Supreme Court rulings over its legality.
© 2010 The Washington Post Company
ad_icon
Network News
X My Profile

    Friends' Activity

View More Activity

Edited by ch1ck3n.s0up (08/04/13 10:20 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinech1ck3n.s0up
Troubled Loner
Male User Gallery


Registered: 10/03/08
Posts: 2,573
Loc: Hunting Fungi
Last seen: 2 years, 9 months
Re: Supreme Court: Suspects must invoke right to remain silent in interrogations [Re: ch1ck3n.s0up]
    #18660747 - 08/04/13 09:02 PM (10 years, 9 months ago)

For some reason my sig is not showing in the above post...


--------------------

"Inspiration ~ Move me brightly ~ light the song with sense and color ~ hold away despair ~ more than this I will not ask ~ faced with mysteries dark and vast ~ statements just seem vain at last" --Jerry Garcia, Terrapin Station

"Officer, I'm going to remain silent, and I would like to speak with a lawyer. I'm not resisting, but I don't consent to any searches.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,521
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Supreme Court: Suspects must invoke right to remain silent in interrogations [Re: ch1ck3n.s0up]
    #18662225 - 08/05/13 05:44 AM (10 years, 9 months ago)

The interrogation must end as soon as you say you want a lawyer present, but any clear indication that you don't want to answer any questions is enough to invoke the right.

The real problem is that most people don't invoke until they've realized that they've already said too much.  Also, many people invoke and then later re-initiate contact with the police.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinech1ck3n.s0up
Troubled Loner
Male User Gallery


Registered: 10/03/08
Posts: 2,573
Loc: Hunting Fungi
Last seen: 2 years, 9 months
Re: Supreme Court: Suspects must invoke right to remain silent in interrogations [Re: Enlil]
    #18664225 - 08/05/13 04:05 PM (10 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:
The interrogation must end as soon as you say you want a lawyer present, but any clear indication that you don't want to answer any questions is enough to invoke the right.



How would you phrase a statement that would clearly indicate your intention to invoke the right to remain silent, and end an interrogation?

Quote:

Enlil said:
The real problem is that most people don't invoke until they've realized that they've already said too much.  Also, many people invoke and then later re-initiate contact with the police.



What do you mean by "re-initiate contact with the police?" If they ask the officer for the time, would that be considered re-initiation of contact? Also, does re-initiation invalidate a previous statement to invoke Miranda rights end an interrogation?

For example, Leroy gets arrested as the suspect in an armed robbery. The officer starts questioning him. He says, "Sir, I would like to officially invoke my Miranda right to remain silent. I don't consent to any searches, and I would like to speak with a lawyer. I would like this interrogation to end immediately; please cease and desist from asking me questions." One hour later, Leroy gets nervous, and says, "Officer, what's going to happen to me?" Is this question a re-initiation of contact, and does this question cancel and invalidate his previous asserted intention to invoke his Miranda right to remain silent?


--------------------

"Inspiration ~ Move me brightly ~ light the song with sense and color ~ hold away despair ~ more than this I will not ask ~ faced with mysteries dark and vast ~ statements just seem vain at last" --Jerry Garcia, Terrapin Station

"Officer, I'm going to remain silent, and I would like to speak with a lawyer. I'm not resisting, but I don't consent to any searches.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleanne halonium
jaguarette
Female


Registered: 05/07/13
Posts: 1,908
Re: Supreme Court: Suspects must invoke right to remain silent in interrogations [Re: ch1ck3n.s0up]
    #18664241 - 08/05/13 04:09 PM (10 years, 9 months ago)

we train peeps to only give name, rank, and serial number,
until released. no exceptions, torture is not an excuse.


--------------------
:aliendance:

Edited by anne halonium (08/05/13 04:10 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 67,521
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Supreme Court: Suspects must invoke right to remain silent in interrogations [Re: ch1ck3n.s0up]
    #18664271 - 08/05/13 04:16 PM (10 years, 9 months ago)

Asking the officer what's going to happen is probably re-initiating.  Asking for the time most likely isn't.

I can't give you ever possible way that someone can invoke Miranda rights, but just saying "I refuse to answer any questions until my lawyer is here" will certainly do the trick.

The officers can't ask any questions after that unless the suspect re-initiates contact such that it can be reasonably interpreted to be withdrawal of the of the previous invocation of rights.  If such a waiver occurs, the suspect can always re-invoke them by saying he wants his lawyer present.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinech1ck3n.s0up
Troubled Loner
Male User Gallery


Registered: 10/03/08
Posts: 2,573
Loc: Hunting Fungi
Last seen: 2 years, 9 months
Re: Supreme Court: Suspects must invoke right to remain silent in interrogations [Re: Enlil]
    #18664915 - 08/05/13 07:05 PM (10 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:
Asking the officer what's going to happen is probably re-initiating.  Asking for the time most likely isn't.

I can't give you ever possible way that someone can invoke Miranda rights, but just saying "I refuse to answer any questions until my lawyer is here" will certainly do the trick.

The officers can't ask any questions after that unless the suspect re-initiates contact such that it can be reasonably interpreted to be withdrawal of the of the previous invocation of rights.  If such a waiver occurs, the suspect can always re-invoke them by saying he wants his lawyer present.



Thank you.


--------------------

"Inspiration ~ Move me brightly ~ light the song with sense and color ~ hold away despair ~ more than this I will not ask ~ faced with mysteries dark and vast ~ statements just seem vain at last" --Jerry Garcia, Terrapin Station

"Officer, I'm going to remain silent, and I would like to speak with a lawyer. I'm not resisting, but I don't consent to any searches.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejolo
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 09/26/09
Posts: 166
Re: Supreme Court: Suspects must invoke right to remain silent in interrogations [Re: ch1ck3n.s0up]
    #18666377 - 08/06/13 01:05 AM (10 years, 9 months ago)

I didn't read the whole thing, but the boy said that he did actually pray for god to forgive him for shooting someone, implying guilt.

It's kind of like the joke kids used to play back in school where they ask "Does your mom know you're gay."

Regardless, I don't see a problem here.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1

Kraken Kratom Shop: Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Court Opens Door To Searches Without Warrants
( 1 2 all )
valour 2,595 22 03/30/04 09:58 PM
by JuanMatus
* Long hair
( 1 2 3 4 all )
steelflower 5,696 65 09/01/14 07:59 AM
by Alan Rockefeller
* Supreme Court Upholds Dog Sniffs at Traffic Stops phlegmmaiden 708 8 02/17/05 12:52 PM
by Prisoner#1
* Traffic Court astabooty 1,277 18 12/06/06 01:42 AM
by fastfred
* court date coming up ClockworkNoah 607 8 02/03/05 08:18 AM
by Seuss
* Drug Law FAQ: A Guide to the Fourth Ammendment Lana 4,037 8 05/28/02 07:02 PM
by GabbaDj
* FBI bulletin on using informant tips to obtain probable cause (long with extensive footnotes) MikeOLogical 1,582 2 07/25/05 11:53 AM
by drtyfrnk
* PLUTONIUM GOT ME BUSTED! *DELETED*
( 1 2 3 4 all )
BlimeyGrimey 7,289 74 10/18/06 01:29 AM
by BlimeyGrimey

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, Alan Rockefeller
175 topic views. 0 members, 0 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.028 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 15 queries.