Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Once the accused asked for an attorney the questioning would have to stop. The bomber would have to be read his rights and be charged.
Further, you better tell these guys, "Federal public defenders have agreed to represent the suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings. Miriam Conrad, the federal defender for Massachusetts, says her office expects to represent Dzhokhar Tsarnaev after he is charged.
Public defenders will represent Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev - Washington Times
Not true, let me explain how this actually works.
The police arrest someone, and start asking him questions with the intent of using what he says against him. He actually asks for an attorney, so the police reach out and find him one, and then continue to question him in the presence of his attorney.
Another scenario, the police arrest a guy, like Tsarnev, who might have have planted a bomb somewhere. The police are perfectly free to ask him about that, and continue asking, even if he asks for an attorney. What they cannot do is force him to answer.
Why is this so hard?
Bottom line windbag...
- "You can invoke your right to be silent before or during an interrogation, and if you do so, the interrogation must stop.
- You can invoke your right to have an attorney present, and until your attorney is present, the interrogation must stop."
Miranda Warnings and Police Questioning - FindLaw
In this situation the the public safety exception applies, and purportedly is being used.
Not true, let me explain how this actually works.
The police arrest someone, and start asking him questions with the intent of using what he says against him. He actually asks for an attorney, so the police reach out and find him one, and then continue to question him in the presence of his attorney.
Another scenario, the police arrest a guy, like Tsarnev, who might have have planted a bomb somewhere. The police are perfectly free to ask him about that, and continue asking, even if he asks for an attorney. What they cannot do is force him to answer.
Why is this so hard?
Bottom line windbag...
- "You can invoke your right to be silent before or during an interrogation, and if you do so, the interrogation must stop.
- You can invoke your right to have an attorney present, and until your attorney is present, the interrogation must stop."
Miranda Warnings and Police Questioning - FindLaw
In this situation the the public safety exception applies, and purportedly is being used.
Doubling down on stupid only makes you extra stupid.
The Volokh Conspiracy » Tsarnaev and Miranda Rights
- This only applies if the police intend to use your statement against you in court.
- Ditto.
I actually explained all of this previously, you should go back and read it. So far the only people that have had a problem with my explanation are a couple of wingnuts who think Obama is Satan incarnate, and you.
I abhor Indefinite detention without trial: Section 1021 of NDAA 2012 as well a number of items in the Patriot Act, however I really don't see any alternative if we are to stop terrorist. These laws take exception to amendments in the Bill of Rights. How they are used will differentiate us from our enemies.At least youre consistent in contributing nothing of value.
I suggest you read the NDAA 2012 and 2013 how can you lie like that?
Says one of the most unlikely people on the board to uphold the law.Unlike you I know the law.
Says one of the most unlikely people on the board to uphold the law.Unlike you I know the law.
The feds will give the accused the warning at an appropriate time before trying him in federal court.
Says one of the most unlikely people on the board to uphold the law.Unlike you I know the law.
The feds will give the accused the warning at an appropriate time before trying him in federal court.
I live rent free in your mind think about that.
Thanks for admitting you have nothing here at all.
jakey still can't understand this simple concept and it is even from his link:
If a court found that Tsarnaev was not read his Miranda rights, the usual consequence would be that any statements he made prior to being read his rights could not be admitted at trial. However, prosecutors might not need such statements if they have overwhelming evidence of Tsarnaevs guilt.
Read more: Next for Boston suspect: 5 legal questions - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com
Says one of the most unlikely people on the board to uphold the law.Unlike you I know the law.
The feds will give the accused the warning at an appropriate time before trying him in federal court.
Says one of the most unlikely people on the board to uphold the law.
The feds will give the accused the warning at an appropriate time before trying him in federal court.
I live rent free in your mind think about that.
I live rent free in your mind think about that.
I know the law, and you don't that's it, nothing else.
I know the law, and you don't that's it, nothing else.
Then you need to obey it. I do. That's all.
Not giving a Miranda Warning benefits the accused because nothing he says can be used against him in court. The reason for not giving the Miranda Warning is get more information from the accused. If nothing he says can be used against him, he has little reason not to spill everything. My guess is that the police have enough evidence to put him away for life without regards to anything he says.Says one of the most unlikely people on the board to uphold the law.Unlike you I know the law.
The feds will give the accused the warning at an appropriate time before trying him in federal court.
No. They will not.
Citizens don't get Miranda rights?
Not giving a Miranda Warning benefits the accused because nothing he says can be used against him in court. The reason for not giving the Miranda Warning is get more information from the accused. If nothing he says can be used against him, he has little reason not to spill everything. My guess is that the police have enough evidence to put him away for life without regards to anything he says.Says one of the most unlikely people on the board to uphold the law.
The feds will give the accused the warning at an appropriate time before trying him in federal court.
No. They will not.
He will get his Miranda rights....again and again
And on film
Not giving a Miranda Warning benefits the accused because nothing he says can be used against him in court. The reason for not giving the Miranda Warning is get more information from the accused. If nothing he says can be used against him, he has little reason not to spill everything. My guess is that the police have enough evidence to put him away for life without regards to anything he says.No. They will not.
You are more or less on track.
You give Miranda warnings to a suspect being subjected to custodial interrogation (that is, questioning while he is in custody) to allow the prosecution to USE his statements as evidence against him at his pending criminal trial. No Mirandas given yields no use of his statements against him at trial (on the government's case in chief at least).
But if the questions you wish to ask him are NOT motivated by a desire to get him to implicate himself but are instead motivated by a desire to find out how much of existing threat to the public is still in effect, then there would be NO LOGICAL REASON on the face of God's green Earth to tell him he has a 'right to remain silent.'
So, you choose NOT to give him his Miranda warnings even though he's in custody. You get him to speak and speak as much as you can. In short, you do what you can to protect people and maybe save lives and prevent other acts of terrorism. And if the "cost" of doing so is the loss of the use of his words against him at trial, so be it.
Not giving a Miranda Warning benefits the accused because nothing he says can be used against him in court. The reason for not giving the Miranda Warning is get more information from the accused. If nothing he says can be used against him, he has little reason not to spill everything. My guess is that the police have enough evidence to put him away for life without regards to anything he says.
You are more or less on track.
You give Miranda warnings to a suspect being subjected to custodial interrogation (that is, questioning while he is in custody) to allow the prosecution to USE his statements as evidence against him at his pending criminal trial. No Mirandas given yields no use of his statements against him at trial (on the government's case in chief at least).
But if the questions you wish to ask him are NOT motivated by a desire to get him to implicate himself but are instead motivated by a desire to find out how much of existing threat to the public is still in effect, then there would be NO LOGICAL REASON on the face of God's green Earth to tell him he has a 'right to remain silent.'
So, you choose NOT to give him his Miranda warnings even though he's in custody. You get him to speak and speak as much as you can. In short, you do what you can to protect people and maybe save lives and prevent other acts of terrorism. And if the "cost" of doing so is the loss of the use of his words against him at trial, so be it.
The courts have actually ruled that it is fine to question someone, get a bunch of incriminating statements, then read him a warning and try to get him to repeat what he already said. I don't particularly like that tactic, but everyone should know they have the right to remain silent if they watch any cop show ever.
I know the law, and you don't that's it, nothing else.
Then you need to obey it. I do. That's all.
