*Featured Post* “Turn Out the Lights, Cause I Don’t Want to See …
… Who it is Questioning Me!”
In the true spirit of the party for the ‘little guy’, Obama’s DoJ is petitioning SCOTUS for the elimination of a defendant’s right of an interrogation to cease without an attorney present (Michigan v. Jackson, 1986). –
Anything police learn through such questioning cannot be used against the defendant at trial. The opinion was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the only current justice who was on the court at the time.
The justices could decide as early as Friday whether they want to hear arguments on the issue as they wrestle with an ongoing case from Louisiana that involves police questioning of an indigent defendant that led to a murder confession and a death sentence.
The Justice Department, in a brief signed by Solicitor General Elena Kagan, said the 1986 decision “serves no real purpose” and offers only “meager benefits.” The government said defendants who don’t wish to talk to police don’t have to and that officers must respect that decision. But it said there is no reason a defendant who wants to should not be able to respond to officers’ questions.
The throwaway line of ‘it serves no real purpose’ is the doozy. It would probably serve no real purpose if the State could not hide behind Soveign Immunity in performance of their own acts as the police and prosecutor.
The core point in Michigan was the gap between Miranda and the appearance of council while an interrogation is going on. SCOTUS in Michigan –
Syllabus. Respondents, at separate arraignments in a Michigan trial court on unrelated murder charges, each requested appointment of counsel. But before respondents had an opportunity to consult with counsel, police officers, after advising respondents of their Miranda rights, questioned them and obtained confessions. Both respondents were convicted over objections to the admission of the confessions in evidence. The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed and remanded in one case, but affirmed in the other. The Michigan Supreme Court considered both cases together, and held that the confessions were improperly obtained in violation of the Sixth Amendment.
Held: The confessions should have been suppressed. Although the rule of Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U. S. 477, that once a suspect has invoked his right to counsel, police may not initiate interrogation until counsel has been made available to the suspect, rested on the Fifth Amendment and concerned a request for counsel made during custodial interrogation, the reasoning of that case applies with even greater force to these cases. The assertion of the right to counsel is no less significant, and the need for additional safeguards no less clear, when that assertion is made at an arraignment and when the basis for it is the Sixth Amendment. If police initiate an interrogation after a defendant’s assertion of his right to counsel at an arraignment or similar proceeding, as in these cases, any waiver of that right for that police-initiated interrogation is invalid. Pp. 475 U. S. 629-635.
The most striking fact is that the DoJ in stating that the effect of Michigan is minor in another part of the document states that the effects on the prosecution is major. If the 5th and 6th Amendments are the major protections as specified by DoJ then by extension they are also the major impediments in the State’s acquiring a conviction. To which any effect by Michigan would have to be rendered minor to the State.
What I suspect that DoJ is angling for is a loophole that questioning may continue till council appears on the scene. The hope of course that in the intervening time the suspect my trip up and reveal information relevant to the State.
The irony in the whole thing? The Left is having a hissy fit. More ‘Change’ than they expected.
DoJ’s brief to SCOTUS here.
Michigan rendering.
[1]
I’m gonna plead the 5th until I re-read this (and, uh, talk to an attorney)
[2]
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. It sounds like their attorneys are not too swift if they are trying to argue minor and major effect at the same time! Talking out of both sides of their mouths!
So, am I correct in understanding that the bottom line is that Obama’s DoJ is trying to set the stage to do be able to do some nasty interrogations without counsel present?
[3]
Fascinating post, and yes the irony is sort of sweet.
How long till they start suggesting Miranda should only apply to Muslims and Code Pink, I mean it’s only of meager benefit to use really right?
{OT}
“officers must respect that decision”… how many cops do you know that stay calm, cool, collected and professional when you start refusing to answer their questions? I’m sure it’s a majority, though I’ve yet to meet one.
[4]
Can I be the first to shriek “TORTURE!!! ” ? Hey wouldn’t that make DoJ facilities now “black sites”?
[5]
Ok clearly I need a couple drinks… I’m leaving the office catch up on the rest of the threads later.
[6]
Now INC, be carful with that fear factor or you might be accused of wearing a tin-foil hat.
I’ll have to read the brief and Michigan decision again, but I would have to agree that it appears DOJ wants interrogations to continue. Imagine the delays in locating an attorney and then finding the interrogation location if the police can keep chatting up a suspect.
[7]
I’m gonna plead the 5th until I re-read this (and, uh, talk to an attorney)
No, you’ll answer my question before I taze you, citizen!
[8]
Taze me…but pleeeeze don’t make me watch “The View”!!! I’ll tell you anything!
[9]
KH, I wasn’t even thinking of it in terms of the Left’s shrill voice about waterboarding–but their hypocrisy is evident at so many levels!
[10]
Judy, just trying to stay a step ahead!
I look forward to hearing your opinion. Glad we have an attorney in the house.
[11]
INC,
The way I read it is DoJ would like to be able to keep questioning the person till the legal eagle shows up. The detained is not losing any right to just shut up. But the police are gaining the right to still ask questions. And yes, I would like to hear what Judy has to say too.
J,
Isn’t “The View” listed in the Army field manual as inappropriate materials for interrogation?
[12]
J, JM,
You both are in CA right? Have you heard this one?
[13]
Dr.Dog: “You both are in CA right? Have you heard this one?”
I have now! And as a result I’m only going to steal things of lesser value from now on! Thx for the tip! (p.s. that makes you an accessory!)
[14]
John Paul Seevens – Gerald Ford’s gift that keeps on giving. How many bad Supreme Court Judges have been nominated by Republican Presidents, starting with Warren and Brennan?
[15]
J,
I have now! And as a result I’m only going to steal things of lesser value from now on! Thx for the tip! (p.s. that makes you an accessory!)
Yeah I know!
But I don’t think they can afford extradition costs either.
[16]
“In the true spirit of the party for the ‘little guy’, Obama’s DoJ is petitioning SCOTUS for the elimination of a defendant’s right of an interrogation to cease without an attorney present (Michigan v. Jackson, 1986). ” –drdgog
Some questions are twirling around the ol’ noggin.
If, lets say by June, 2009 the high court agrees that it is indeed necessary for police to wait until counsel arrives to question a suspect even after Mirandizing them, then why shouldn’t it be retroactive to existing cases–for instance, back to June 2008? Are they going to toss the convictions? Send ‘em back for retrial?
Why not back to the 80’s? Specifically, why not back to November 13th, 1979? Don’t ask my why that particular date is important to me–it just is.
Sigh-change I can believe in.
[17]
John Paul Seevens – Gerald Ford’s gift that keeps on giving. How many bad Supreme Court Judges have been nominated by Republican Presidents, starting with Warren and Brennan?
Remember, the first half of the 20th century was dominated by the progressives, who filled the ranks of both parties.
Reagan was an anomaly. Remember how Bush 41 called his economic plan voodoo?
Yeah. Bush, the superhero. Dumbest thing Reagan ever did, throw a bone to the progressive wing of the R party by choosing Bush as veep. Look where that got the R party.
[18]
DON’T TAZE ME BRO’……..
[19]
Remember McCain saying that TR was his favorite R? Teddy was a huge progressive. They are still around.
This is the old school Republican party line of reasoning that had the Dems in control of congress for 40 years. They are closer to the left than your average Democrat.
Look at W’s open borders advocacy. Open borders, and mass amnesty/immigration is one of the tools of social engineering wielded by the far left all over the world.
And Bush was down with it.
[20]
Damn, it looks like the free market crowd in /France is going to have their revolution before we do.
We are real weenies if we let this happen.
[21]
Nice gravatar. If I hadn’t gone with captain America or the Gadsden flag, I’d have been looking for Leonidas.
[22]
conservativetony…we would be TOTAL weekines!!
Viva La Revolucion!! (or whatever the English equivalent is
)
Seriously…I fear we are edging closer to such an event.
[23]
Oak Leaf is over at Poli blogging that only “loons” would stockpile ammo in fear of anarchy or unrest.
At least one other Poli blogger, Varones, is doing it, but Oak means us, the old Poli regulars.
he also sees the economy recovering nicely and no fiscal problems from the dollar or deficit, or the fact that we are printing cash to finance our own debt.
If you tried that at home you’d go to jail for counterfeiting…
[24]
And he’s a big fan of GE with all their new green jobs, lol, and their crooked CEO Immelt.
he has truly gone right around the bend.
[25]
Justrand, its going to be a real letdown if we let the Frenchies show us how to do it.
Thanks, Yahoo. Somebody on Pokerstars had one similar to it, so I ‘borrowed’ his idea.
[26]
Justrand – they are talking the same for Germany. Estimates are 6% reduction in GDP. If you remember, earlier in the year Drudge had a headline “Summer of Rage” in reference of things to come in Europe.
As unemployment continues to climb, buying power falls, we may well be sitting on a tinderbox. Unfortunately our politicians are out of touch with the real world, making the situation far worse.
[27]
conservativetony permalink
Justrand, its going to be a real letdown if we let the Frenchies show us how to do it.
I may have misread it, but it looked like the frogies were striking to oppose privatization.
[28]
Froggie excerpt: The Government is losing control,” he said. “So now is the moment to push back the capitalist logic which has crept into the company.”
Nothing to emulate here.
[29]
We are truly hosed
[30]
The French EDF and the French Muslims need to set a schedule. No use turning out the lights if there is to be a Peugeot fire sale on the R’ de Rivoli, nobody will notice.
[31]
Yeah, I had to read it a few times, but this paragraph is what threw me
“They are denounced as industrial saboteurs by the Government and face disciplinary action and prosecution, but say they are determined to press ahead with what they portray as a struggle against free-market forces.”
The next paragraph sets it straight.
“After failing to prevent the partial privatisations of EDF and GDF, the gas supplier, they believe that the tide has turned in their favour because of the recession.”
Only a lefty would think govt/union thugs are ‘free market”
But, do you think we can stoke a revolution anyway–just to see what happens? Yahoo probably has enough ammo for all of us.
[32]
OT
Tedisci conceded in the NY 20 race.
[33]
Oops, I mean Tedisco.
[34]
Chek–
That makes Steele 0-2? or have I missed something?
[35]
You are right Tony, Steele needs to go. Let’s put the guy that belonged in a “whites only” club in charge.
[36]
Why are you so damned tendentious…???
[37]
Because I am sick and tired of the double standard being applied to Steele. The GOP got their arse wiped out in 2006. Nobody believed they would lose the Senate, but they did. Yet I don’t recall ANYONE calling for the RNC chair to resign. I have NEVER heard anyone talk about the RNC chair so much in the past. But somehow every little move Steele makes, there is an immediate call for him to resign.
[38]
chekote: “I don’t recall ANYONE calling for the RNC chair to resign.”
Geez, chekote, we ALL called for that!
I like Steele a lot…I contributed to his Maryland Senate race. BUT he either stands up to the Dems or gets the hell out of the way!
I truly hope he DOES stand up…and that he stays. But having one more ranking Republican playing “nice” with the Dems is too much! It is a f**king knife FIGHT…stop with the debating points and slice their balls off!!!
[39]
Which is more likely? Chek saying:
That _____________ ( R ) must go.
or
That _____________( D ) must go.
[40]
Justrand
Is this what you mean about fighting back?
[41]
Chek, that is quite possibly one of the best videos I have seen in a long time. Thanks for posting it.
[42]
Many of us opposed Steele because we felt he was the weak, politically correct candidate. So far, he hasn’t proven us wrong.
[43]
Why are you so damned tendentious…??? ~~~MFB
She must maintain her ex wife characteristics, as she eschews
civil and sexual discourse.
[44]
I would have voted for Chip Saltsman or whatever he seemed to show a pair of balls when they tried to hit him with the Barack the magic negro crap, but none of them were going to really going to make much difference.
Mrs. California’s got some time on her hands, what do you think?
[45]
But somehow every little move Steele makes, there is an immediate call for him to resign.
There is no more room for error. If the Dems hold the house in 2010, we are probably looking at political checkmate.
We need a fighter, and we can’t find one.
[46]
rwy, we need a BRAWLER! Even the few “fighters” we have these days tend to be counter-punchers. Counter-punching is fine, but sometimes you need to get inside and mix it up (that’s the advice my boxing coach gave me in the Marines)
Newt could be…but the press is just waiting to bring up his personal life again. Still, he should be able to blow past that.
Palin could be…but the press did such an effective smear job on her the first time I am not sure some folks will listen to her.
And, sadly, I see few others out there who can give an effective speech!
[47]
RWY,
If that brawler Justrand is talking about is not ALREADY in hand, 2010 is toast. Filings for most states are due 4Q’09 but no later the 1Q10.
[48]
We need a fighter, and we can’t find one.
Yup!
Chip Saltman withdrew before the RNC vote started.
[49]
Yes, Dr, I am afraid is is too late. Steele was just the proverbial “rearranging of the chairs on the deck of the Titanic.”
Still think collapse, war and secession are off the table? I think they are looking more likely every day, and although no one will take their hands away and look at it, they can still hear the footsteps.
What are the states to do after all? The Feds are in a pattern of epic fail endlessly repeated.
[50]
rwy, as you know 2-3 years ago (on a “Board Which Must Not Be Named”) I argued with you that we were a DECADE away from scenarios involving “collapse, war and secession”.
Sadly, I now think you’re right in the timing your predictions.
Sadly for 2 reasons:
(1) It means my country is in for a long period of darkness…and my kids & grandkids are going to suffer the most!
(2) dammit…I HATE being wrong!
[51]
chekote, I agree with conservativetony, that is a fabulous link!
Glenn Beck for Prsident?
It’d be fun, anyway!
And frankly he would CRUSH most any politician in a debate!
[52]
Justrand
Beck is showing what needs to be said about the memo release. But I have yet to see ONE Republican take on the Dems and their hypocrisy. The GOP is still acting like the have something to lose. THEY DON’T. Their backs are against the wall. This is the time to go all out. Time to grab the American people by the shoulder and shake some sense into them. Beck is right. These actions took place just after 9/11 when we ALL wanted the government to stop an attack and DIDN’T care how they did it. The American people need to be reminded about how afraid we all felt on 9/11.
[53]
great points, chekote. Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE expected us to get hit…and HARD…within days, weeks, or months (outside range!)
YEARS later we are still (for now) safe.
Adn we did not become a “Police State”. Though the Left convinced many that we were. We all watched as utterly BRAINLESS protesters said things like: “This is what Nazi Germany was like” (I saw clips like that DAILY!)
The Left had finally succeeded in dumbing down Americans to the point they know NOTHING of history…and thus are easy pawns to move around the board!
[54]
Though the Left convinced many that we were.
This is why it is CRITICAL that we have someone who can articulate policy and defend actions. We CANNOT afford another Bush or Bush lite. So far I don’t see anyone in the GOP field that suits the bill.