Miranda (13 posts)

1. Miranda
Thu, Feb 11, 1999 - 10:58 AM/EST
JimP

Waht do you guys and gals think about the Circuit Court of Appeals ruling yesterday on Miranda?

I haven't seen anything in the newspaper yet, but NPR had an article about it last night. Essentially, the Court ruled that a law passed by Congress after the Miranda decision was constitutional, and that there are instances in which a person does not have to be advised of his right to have an attorney present, and that if s/he can not afford an attorney, one will be appointed for him.

Justice knew about the law, but had refused to follow it, feeling, I suppose, that the Miranda decision iis a higher law and should not be degraded by the later law.

That's not much real fact. I'll try to gather more. But, what does it say about the direction in which the country is moving? I am, frankly, a little apprehensive.

Regards,

Jim

2. Yes, I heard about it.
Thu, Feb 11, 1999 - 11:20 AM/EST
Gayle

Sounds like we're going backward instead of forward. I keep seeing black and white mental images of a smokey interrogation room, bright light dangling from the ceiling. James Cagney-like cop, with a truncheon.

3. Miranda outdated?
Thu, Feb 11, 1999 - 12:05 PM/EST
McRostie

I don't think so. This case has been reported, although I'm not sure where I read it in the press. I think it was in the Minneapolis Star Tribune for at least one paper.

The Miranda decision has been under attack by the more conservative of the "law and order' group since it was written many years ago. In this case, when it couldn't be overturned in the courts, "law and order" resorted to legislative action as they are certainly entitled to do. They passed a law that said a confession could be allowed in evidence if given prior to the Miranda warning, provided the trial Judge was convinced it was voluntarilly given.

That creates an evidentiary problem, but I'm not sure makes bad law. It seems to me that if the first thing the police hear prior to any other contact with the defendant (or anyone else hears for that matter) after the commission of a crime is "I DID IT", that statement should be admitted into evidence. If, on the other hand, anything has been said or done to the defendant, prior to the statement being made, it should not.

I've not read the statute involved, but unless it's reflective of those ideas, I'll guess the Supreme Court will divide on the issue but throw it out as being violative of Miranda which they will uphold.

So much for my "words of wisdom".

Regards, McRostie

4. Deeper, and from another angle.
Thu, Feb 11, 1999 - 2:58 PM/EST
JimP

Let us say, for instance, that this law has been in existence since approximately 3 years after the Miranda decision. That's approximately what I think I heard. This isn't a case of an existing, ancient law that has languished on the books for years and years. This is a law passed by the US Congress, in all its wisdom.

Until very recently, the Justice Department, and all other enforcement agencies, have chosen not to enforce that law. For whatever reason, they decided that the law did not have to be enforced.

In a nation of laws, is that their prerogative? If they can choose which laws to enforce, and which not to do so, where are the limits of those choices? If they do not think the law is just, is it not their responsibility to go through the established procedures to change it, rather than simply ignoring it? Is't their ignoring a law dangerous to our liberties?

what's the group's thoughts?

Regards,

Jim

5. Ignore a law?
Thu, Feb 11, 1999 - 8:28 PM/EST
McRostie

That's not what happens Jim. When you are faced with a law that you feel may be unconstitutional, you challenge it when you have a decent chance to: 1. Get the Supreme Court to hear the case, 2, Have a case that demonstrates the lack of constitutionality; and 3. Believe you have a majority of the Justices on you side of the question.

The fact that this one took some time to come up is not something you should charge against the Attorney General's office. It apparently took this long for some lower courts to uphold the law so that it could rise to the Supreme Court level.

Regards, McRostie

6.
Thu, Feb 11, 1999 - 9:38 PM/EST
JimP

So, we either have another case of poor, perhaps biased reporting, or that the Justice Dept. specifically decided not to enforce the law.

The report yesterday clearly stated that the Justice Department had decided not to enforce this law. The prosecutor did use testimony obtained, at the station house, not the scene. Prior to his use, the Justice Department had, according to the report, made a conscious decision not to allow testimony obtained in violation of Miranda.

So, if the report is correct, the Justice Department makes decisions about which laws to enforce, and which not. If the report is incorrect, or biased, the media has once again provided the public with a warped picture.

Is this interpretation of the facts accurate? I have to admit that I don't have any more substantial information at this time. I'll try to get some more.

Regards,

Jim

7. Miranda Article
Fri, Feb 12, 1999 - 1:15 AM/EST
Gayle

http://cnn.com/US/9902/11/miranda.rights.02/index.html

8. Another Miranda Article
Fri, Feb 12, 1999 - 9:40 AM/EST
Gayle

This morning's Capitol Watch:

http://www.capitolwatch.com/stories02_12.htm#story01

9. Challenge in a vacuum?
Fri, Feb 12, 1999 - 11:11 AM/EST
McRostie

You can't do that Jim. If the Justice Department feels a law is unconstitutional, it can't ask the Courts for an advisory opinion. They don't, at least at the Federal level, give them. All the Department can do is sit by until a case comes up in which the law in question is pivotal. At that time, and only then, can the Cepartment take a position in court to uphold or challenge the law.

That is apparently what happened in the instant case. Someone finally used the law as a justification for admitting evidence in a trial, i.e. upheld the constitutionality of the law. Finally, it was possible for the Department to take its position.

I would also point out that it is more than a little difficult to "enforce" a law which permits the introduction of evidence until someone involved in a case uses it. Until then, there is not what the courts call a "justificiable controversy". You can't, for instance, enforce a law allowing 75MPH speeds until some Judge rules the law unconstitutiona in a speeding casel. Then, and only then, can the state step into court to "enforce" the law. Until that time, all you can do is allow things to take their course.

Regards, McRostie

10. If you say sa.
Fri, Feb 12, 1999 - 11:17 AM/EST
JimP

That isn't what I thought I heard. I'll read some of the background, including what Gayle posted.

Regards,

Jim

11. Bye everyone, it has been fun...
Tue, Feb 16, 1999 - 2:56 PM/EST
Gayle

I haven't abandoned all of you, I'm just unable to finish out the rest of the week. Couldn't get Reality Check to let me in this weekend or Monday morning, then spent most of yesterday making arrangements for an emergency trip home.

I don't think I'll be back before the Feb. 21st cutoff date for RC, so I'll contact all of you via email once I return.

Best Wishes to all --
Gayle

12. me next...
Wed, Feb 17, 1999 - 5:46 PM/EST
eireann

since gayle posted her good bye here, i guess i'll do the same...

i'm leaving tomorrow for my favorite city in the whole wide world, the most beautiful place on the planet, the city of lights - paris.

so, i will have to take my leave of you all in this format, though i'm assuming we'll be able to keep in touch in some way or another via email...please do send me an email to let me know of any changes in RC or anything else while i'm gone. it's been a great experience and i've really enjoyed getting to know all of you.

i'll try to check in tomorrow before i go, but if not - au revoir et a bientot! (good bye and 'til next time!)

-eireann

13. Who's left?
Wed, Feb 17, 1999 - 10:48 PM/EST
JimP

With eireann and Gayle departing, and the paucity of comments from other members of the group, that's a legitimate question. McRostie, FelixG, and me seems to be the list recently.

I received the e-mail from the Reality Check facilitator this evening. I've sent my reply in. But, that doesn't close this Group out yet. I continue to be interested in our conversations, and would like to hear from more of us.

Regards, Jim