�
 |
|
 |
|
|
| How would they have handled Natalee's disappearance where .. - Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next |
| View previous topic
:: View next topic |
petals
 Posted:
Sat Feb 06, 2010 12:53 pm |
|
|
|
| prolific wrote: |
I get the idea perfectly, thanks...
You said the names of juveniles would NEVER be released to the press, I posted just a few juveniles charged with crimes whose names have been released.
If you need more info on each specific crime and the names of other juveniles/minors whose names have been released to the press, try google....there out there, very easy toi find names of juveniles in the press, before and after being charged with crimes. |
If a juvenille is charged as an adult in the U.S. Courts, their identity is fair game. I tend to think that J2K would never have been charged with any crime if this entire episode took place in the States, but if they had, I tend to think that Joran (the only juvenille of the bunch) would have been charged and tried as an adult.
|
|
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 645
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| prolific
Posted:
Sat Feb 06, 2010 12:54 pm |
|
|
|
| petals wrote: |
My husband the attorney strongly disagrees with this post. Persons of interest are always Mirandized before questioning or the entire interview is of no use to the police, and that includes questionings and interrogations that occur prior to an arrest. One of the most common myths in American criminal procedure is that Miranda has anything to do with a lawful arrest - it does not. My husband agrees with Ink, J2K would have been Mirandized before any questioning, if this case had happened in the States.
Neither he nor I know exactly how this compares to Dutch law but it is my understanding that Dutch law also contains protections against self-incrimination. Whether that means that the police have to advise suspects and persons of interest of their rights or not is a matter for another thread, since the title of this thread limits the discussion to how the police would have handled the case if it had happened in the United States. |
Go tell it to Casey Anthony and Misty cummings just to name two.
|
|
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 11146
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| petals
Posted:
Sat Feb 06, 2010 12:55 pm |
|
|
|
| prolific wrote: |
Go tell it to Casey Anthony and Misty cummings just to name two. |
Wrong thread but are you sure that they were never Mirandized prior to their arrest? I haven't really followed either case so I don't know, myself.
|
|
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 645
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| prolific
Posted:
Sat Feb 06, 2010 1:04 pm |
|
|
|
| petals wrote: |
Wrong thread but are you sure that they were never Mirandized prior to their arrest? I haven't really followed either case so I don't know, myself. |
Par for the course...just keep moving the goal post....
It was not originally in reference to and nothing to do with being mirandized at the time of 'arrests'...it was in refernce to police 'questioning' witnesses/persons of interest during a normal course of an investigation, not CHARGED with anything during original police questioning and investigating....whether they later become 'official' suspects and 'officially' charged with crimes is completely different and had nothing to do with what I originally meant.....
Are you really saying that poeple NEVER go in and questioned by police on their own in the course of an investigation, before they were charged without being read Miranda Rights and without an attorney present?
Last edited by prolific on Sat Feb 06, 2010 1:18 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 11146
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| prolific
Posted:
Sat Feb 06, 2010 1:16 pm |
|
|
|
| petals wrote: |
If a juvenille is charged as an adult in the U.S. Courts, their identity is fair game. I tend to think that J2K would never have been charged with any crime if this entire episode took place in the States, but if they had, I tend to think that Joran (the only juvenille of the bunch) would have been charged and tried as an adult. |
Everyones right I'm sorry...just NEVER happens in the US...
-------------------------
Youngest boy in Michael Brewer's burning won't be charged
The 13-year-old arrested in the burning attack of Deerfield Beach teen Michael Brewer will not face charges.
No charges will be brought against Jeremy Jarvis, the youngest boy arrested in connection with the attack on Michael Brewer.
Brewer was doused in rubbing alcohol and set on fire on Oct. 12.
Afterward, the Broward Sheriff's Office arrested five boys, including 13-year-old Jarvis. BSO charged Jarvis with aggravated battery, saying he was there for the attack and did nothing.
But the state attorney's office did not file charges against him, and now the deadline to do so has passed, prosecutor Maria Schneider said Tuesday.
``There wasn't sufficient evidence to base charges on,'' Schneider said.
Jarvis' lawyer, Stephen Melnick, reiterated his postion that his client never participated in the attack.
``He saw what happened and he was there,'' Melnick said, ``but he had nothing to do with it.''
Of the five who were arrested, three were charged by prosecutors. Matthew Bent, 15, Denver Colorado Jarvis, 15, and Jesus Mendez, 16, are charged as adults with second-degree attempted murder.
Investigators said that Denver Colorado Jarvis, Jeremy's older brother, poured rubbing alcohol on Brewer. Mendez lit the flame. Bent, they said, gave the order to pour the alcohol.
A fourth teenager, Steven Shelton, 16, also was arrested by BSO for aggravated battery but not charged by prosecutors. Because he is old enough to face adult charges, prosecutors still have time to file charges against him.
------------------
Judge will now decide if teen is tried as adult
Published: January 28, 2010 03:00 pm
By Jeniece Smith
Herald Staff Writer
CLINTON — A two-day hearing to determine whether a second teen charged in an alleged murder-for-hire scheme will be tried as a juvenile or an adult concluded Wednesday in Clinton County District Court, with a judge expected to file a written ruling on the case.
Ryan M. Peters, 17, faces felony charges of first-degree burglary, attempted murder and conspiracy to commit murder.
http://www.clintonherald.com/local/local_story_028115234.html
|
|
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 11146
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| INK
Posted:
Sat Feb 06, 2010 1:57 pm |
|
|
|
I stand corrected. Apparenlty in Florida it's okay to act against their own legal statutes and the courts are permitted to do anything they think they can get away with, regardless of what the actual law states:
"Florida law says a child can be questioned outside the presence of his or her parents. However, in deciding whether a confession will be admitted as evidence against the child, the judge will consider whether the child fully understands his or her constitutional rights, and whether the parents should have been present to advise the child.
Your child can be taken to the county jail and held for up to six hours to be fingerprinted and photographed upon a reasonable belief that he or she has committed a crime. These records should be kept separately, are not available to the public, and should be destroyed at specific points in time or by court order. The police are then required to release your child to you or another responsible adult relative, or DCF Intake for the purpose of releasing your child to you or detaining your child in a secure juvenile detention facility."
Will be back later, must study wound dehiscence.
|
|
Joined: 24 Aug 2009
Posts: 24
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| prolific
Posted:
Sat Feb 06, 2010 2:01 pm |
|
|
|
Miranda Rights:
Q. At what point are police required to inform a suspect of their Miranda rights?
A. After a person has officially been taken into custody (detained by police), but before any interrogation takes place, police must inform them of their right to remain silent and to have an attorney present during questioning. A person is considered to be "in custody" anytime they are placed in an environment in which they do not believe they are free to leave. Example: Police can question witnesses at crime scenes without reading them their Miranda rights, and should a witness implicate themselves in the crime during that questioning, their statements could be used against them later in court.
Q. Can police question a person without reading them their Miranda rights?
A. Yes. The Miranda warnings must be read only before questioning a person who has been taken into custody.
Q. Can police arrest or detain a person without reading them their Miranda rights?
A. Yes, but until the person has been informed of his or her Miranda rights, any statements made by them during interrogation may be ruled inadmissible in court.
Q. Does Miranda apply to all incriminating statements made to police?
A. No. Miranda does not apply to statements a person makes before they are arrested. Similarly, Miranda does not apply to statements made "spontaneously," or to statements made after the Miranda warnings have been given.
Q. If you first say you don't want a lawyer, can you still demand one during questioning?
A. Yes. A person being questioned by the police can terminate the interrogation at any time by asking for an attorney and stating that he or she declines to answer further questions until an attorney is present. However, any statements made up until that point during the interrogation may be used in court.
Q. Can the police really "help out" or reduce the sentences of suspects who confess during questioning?
A. No. Once a person has been arrested, the police have no control over how the legal system treats them. Criminal charges and sentencing are totally up to the prosecutors and the judge. (See: Why People Confess: Tricks of Police Interrogation)
|
|
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 11146
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| iquitos
Posted:
Sat Feb 06, 2010 2:33 pm |
|
|
|
The guards could not be prosecuted under Iraqi law because of an immunity agreement that had been signed by the Coalition Provisional Authority, the governing authority installed by the United States after the invasion of Iraq. But American prosecutors knew from the beginning that they were facing a difficult task in bringing the case. Complications included the applicability of federal statutes to the guards because they were working overseas at the time for the State Department, and the significant problem stemming from statements the guards gave shortly after the shootings.
The guards had been told by State Department investigators that they could be fired if they did not talk about the case, but that whatever they said would not be used against them in any criminal proceeding.
Nevertheless, Judge Urbina found that "in their zeal to bring charges," investigators and prosecutors had extensively used those statements, disregarding "the warning of experienced, senior prosecutors" that "the course of action threatened the viability of prosecution."
|
|
Joined: 26 Mar 2006
Posts: 18730
Location: in my mind's eye
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| WangChung
Posted:
Sat Feb 06, 2010 3:51 pm |
|
|
|
Just a quick station break -
Joran remains a free man because there's not a shred of credible evidence that Natalee Holloway was the victim of any crime*, much less one committed by Joran. 
*Lousy parenting is not currently considered a crime.
|
|
Everybody Have Fun Tonight
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 11943
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| cajun_mali
Posted:
Sat Feb 06, 2010 4:13 pm |
|
|
|
| WangChung wrote: | Just a quick station break -
Joran remains a free man because there's not a shred of credible evidence that Natalee Holloway was the victim of any crime*, much less one committed by Joran.
*Lousy parenting is not currently considered a crime. |
God, that gets some people here so angry.
|
|
Joined: 24 May 2007
Posts: 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Slickster
Posted:
Sat Feb 06, 2010 4:54 pm |
|
|
|
| cajun_mali wrote: |
God, that gets some people here so angry. |
The truth hurts some people, riles them right up.
|
|
*** Indefinite Timeout ***
Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 2206
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| petals
Posted:
Sat Feb 06, 2010 5:27 pm |
|
|
|
| prolific wrote: | Miranda Rights:
Q. At what point are police required to inform a suspect of their Miranda rights?
A. After a person has officially been taken into custody (detained by police), but before any interrogation takes place, police must inform them of their right to remain silent and to have an attorney present during questioning. A person is considered to be "in custody" anytime they are placed in an environment in which they do not believe they are free to leave. Example: Police can question witnesses at crime scenes without reading them their Miranda rights, and should a witness implicate themselves in the crime during that questioning, their statements could be used against them later in court.
Q. Can police question a person without reading them their Miranda rights?
A. Yes. The Miranda warnings must be read only before questioning a person who has been taken into custody.
Q. Can police arrest or detain a person without reading them their Miranda rights?
A. Yes, but until the person has been informed of his or her Miranda rights, any statements made by them during interrogation may be ruled inadmissible in court.
Q. Does Miranda apply to all incriminating statements made to police?
A. No. Miranda does not apply to statements a person makes before they are arrested. Similarly, Miranda does not apply to statements made "spontaneously," or to statements made after the Miranda warnings have been given.
Q. If you first say you don't want a lawyer, can you still demand one during questioning?
A. Yes. A person being questioned by the police can terminate the interrogation at any time by asking for an attorney and stating that he or she declines to answer further questions until an attorney is present. However, any statements made up until that point during the interrogation may be used in court.
Q. Can the police really "help out" or reduce the sentences of suspects who confess during questioning?
A. No. Once a person has been arrested, the police have no control over how the legal system treats them. Criminal charges and sentencing are totally up to the prosecutors and the judge. (See: Why People Confess: Tricks of Police Interrogation) |
As I said, Miranda has nothing to do with an arrest - it only pertains to whether or not the questioning or interrogation can be used later in a prosecution. If police know what they are doing, they will Mirandize anyone and everyone before they question them. That doesn't mean that some cops will try to skirt the law; nor does it preclude someone from giving a voluntary statement.
|
|
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 645
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Linda in L.A.
Posted:
Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:08 pm |
|
|
|
| petals wrote: |
As I said, Miranda has nothing to do with an arrest - it only pertains to whether or not the questioning or interrogation can be used later in a prosecution. If police know what they are doing, they will Mirandize anyone and everyone before they question them. That doesn't mean that some cops will try to skirt the law; nor does it preclude someone from giving a voluntary statement. |
I disagree Petals. Look at this link.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/mirandarights/a/mirandaqa.htm
"Q. Does Miranda apply to all incriminating statements made to police?
A. No. Miranda does not apply to statements a person makes before they are arrested. Similarly, Miranda does not apply to statements made "spontaneously," or to statements made after the Miranda warnings have been given."
|
|
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1820
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| INK
Posted:
Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:23 pm |
|
|
|
| WangChung wrote: | Just a quick station break -
Joran remains a free man because there's not a shred of credible evidence that Natalee Holloway was the victim of any crime*, much less one committed by Joran.
*Lousy parenting is not currently considered a crime. |
True. If this had occurred in the US, not only would Joran also be a free man (no body, no evidence of a crime etc.), he'd be a very rich man as well.
|
|
Joined: 24 Aug 2009
Posts: 24
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| INK
Posted:
Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:24 pm |
|
|
|
| Linda in L.A. wrote: |
I disagree Petals. Look at this link.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/mirandarights/a/mirandaqa.htm
"Q. Does Miranda apply to all incriminating statements made to police?
A. No. Miranda does not apply to statements a person makes before they are arrested. Similarly, Miranda does not apply to statements made "spontaneously," or to statements made after the Miranda warnings have been given." |
Hi Linda, I'm not petals, but even with the law stated as above a good defense attorney will make mincemeat of that argument in court. I've seen it done. There's quite a bit of room for interpretation and doubt.
|
|
Joined: 24 Aug 2009
Posts: 24
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| petals
Posted:
Sat Feb 06, 2010 7:31 pm |
|
|
|
| Linda in L.A. wrote: |
I disagree Petals. Look at this link.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/mirandarights/a/mirandaqa.htm
"Q. Does Miranda apply to all incriminating statements made to police?
A. No. Miranda does not apply to statements a person makes before they are arrested. Similarly, Miranda does not apply to statements made "spontaneously," or to statements made after the Miranda warnings have been given." |
Once again, I had to consult with my husband the attorney. He strongly disagrees with the first part of the statement you quoted (that Miranda does not apply to statements a person makes before they are arrested). According to him, Miranda has nothing to do with being arrested; it is read to people prior to taking statements, whether they have been arrested or not. It only affects the admissibility of statements. If a statement is taken from a "person of interest" who is then later arrested, the cops had better hope that they Mirandized the P of A prior to taking his statement or that statement will be useless in a Court of Law.
As for spontaneous statements or statements made after Miranda rights are read, well, duh. A person can always waive their rights and talk freely to the police without an attorney present. They can even incriminate themselves if they so choose.
Back to the topic of thread, if everything else were the same but the case happened in the States instead of Aruba, I doubt that anybody would have spent any time in custody.
|
|
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 645
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| billybob
Posted:
Sat Feb 06, 2010 7:43 pm |
|
|
|
| petals wrote: |
Once again, I had to consult with my husband the attorney. He strongly disagrees with the first part of the statement you quoted (that Miranda does not apply to statements a person makes before they are arrested). According to him, Miranda has nothing to do with being arrested; it is read to people prior to taking statements, whether they have been arrested or not. It only affects the admissibility of statements. If a statement is taken from a "person of interest" who is then later arrested, the cops had better hope that they Mirandized the P of A prior to taking his statement or that statement will be useless in a Court of Law.
As for spontaneous statements or statements made after Miranda rights are read, well, duh. A person can always waive their rights and talk freely to the police without an attorney present. They can even incriminate themselves if they so choose.
Back to the topic of thread, if everything else were the same but the case happened in the States instead of Aruba, I doubt that anybody would have spent any time in custody. |
Petals has been doing an excellent job in this thread, really no reason to say much more. She is right about Miranda it has nothing to do with an arrest it has to do with what is said in a statement.
Since there was no evidence when this happened, just a missing girl I cannot see anyone being in jail. Look at similar cases even the recent Petersen case, that husband did not go to jail for the recent missing wife. If there is no evidence in a missing person case can anyone show me where someone has gone to jail? Our system of justice does not work that way. In order to be locked up as a suspect there just has to be evidence against them. Almost 5 years later and there still is nothing.
|
|
Joined: 12 Oct 2007
Posts: 4022
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| prolific
Posted:
Sat Feb 06, 2010 7:58 pm |
|
|
|
Miranda Rights has everything to do with an arrest and nothing to do with someone not yet even a suspect or POI just giving a statement to LE, police allowed to continue to question them until they either ask for an attorney or are officially 'charged' as a suspect and still their prior statements allowed to be used against them if and when they do become an 'official' suspect.
I'll repost this...but feel free to ignore it.....again..
----------------------
Q. At what point are police required to inform a suspect of their Miranda rights?
A. After a person has officially been taken into custody (detained by police), but before any interrogation takes place, police must inform them of their right to remain silent and to have an attorney present during questioning. A person is considered to be "in custody" anytime they are placed in an environment in which they do not believe they are free to leave. Example: Police can question witnesses at crime scenes without reading them their Miranda rights, and should a witness implicate themselves in the crime during that questioning, their statements could be used against them later in court.
Q. Can police question a person without reading them their Miranda rights?
A. Yes. The Miranda warnings must be read only before questioning a person who has been taken into custody.
Q. Can police arrest or detain a person without reading them their Miranda rights?
A. Yes, but until the person has been informed of his or her Miranda rights, any statements made by them during interrogation may be ruled inadmissible in court.
---------------------
Is there a new definition of arrest, if not I'm pretty sure when it says after being taken into custody it means arrested..
Don't recall anyone saying anything about anyone being kept in jail and I do believe Drew Peterson is still considered the prime suspect in his wife's disappearance..no body, no case there either.
J2K were neither suspects nor even 'official' POI yet and certainly had not been arrested when they gave their initial statements.
|
|
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 11146
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| petals
Posted:
Sat Feb 06, 2010 8:09 pm |
|
|
|
| prolific wrote: | Miranda Rights has everything to do with an arrest and nothing to do with someone not yet even a suspect or POI just giving a statement to LE, police allowed to continue to question them until they either ask for an attorney or officially 'charged as a suspect and their prior statements allowed to be used against them if and when they do become an 'official' suspect.
I'll repost this...but feel free to ignore it.....again..
----------------------
Q. At what point are police required to inform a suspect of their Miranda rights?
A. After a person has officially been taken into custody (detained by police), but before any interrogation takes place, police must inform them of their right to remain silent and to have an attorney present during questioning. A person is considered to be "in custody" anytime they are placed in an environment in which they do not believe they are free to leave. Example: Police can question witnesses at crime scenes without reading them their Miranda rights, and should a witness implicate themselves in the crime during that questioning, their statements could be used against them later in court.
Q. Can police question a person without reading them their Miranda rights?
A. Yes. The Miranda warnings must be read only before questioning a person who has been taken into custody.
Q. Can police arrest or detain a person without reading them their Miranda rights?
A. Yes, but until the person has been informed of his or her Miranda rights, any statements made by them during interrogation may be ruled inadmissible in court.
---------------------
Is there a new definition of arrest, if not I'm pretty sure when it says after being taken into custody it means arrested..
Don't recall anyone saying anything about anyone being kept in jail and I do believe Drew Peterson is still considered the prime suspect in his wife's disappearance..no body, no case there either. |
Is there a new definition of arrest? No. Your own post explains the difference between being detained and being under arrest.
I have to say that you changed the parameters with your first paragraph (or, as you like to say, moved the goal posts). Even so, you still got it wrong. There is no requirement that people under arrest be read their Miranda rights. If the police don't take a statement, there is no need to advise them that they can remain silent or have an attorney present. Likewise, as I explained before, a person can voluntarily waive their Miranda rights at any time, even before being arrested, and speak freely without an attorney present. But if the police intend to use their statement in a Court of Law, they better jump in and Mirandize the speaker.
|
|
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 645
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| WangChung
Posted:
Sat Feb 06, 2010 8:14 pm |
|
|
|
| petals wrote: |
Is there a new definition of arrest? No. Your own post explains the difference between being detained and being under arrest.
I have to say that you changed the parameters with your first paragraph (or, as you like to say, moved the goal posts). Even so, you still got it wrong. There is no requirement that people under arrest be read their Miranda rights. If the police don't take a statement, there is no need to advise them that they can remain silent or have an attorney present. Likewise, as I explained before, a person can voluntarily waive their Miranda rights at any time, even before being arrested, and speak freely without an attorney present. But if the police intend to use their statement in a Court of Law, they better jump in and Mirandize the speaker. |
It's a pleasure to read information being provided by someone who actually knows what they're talking about. Kudos to you and your husband. 
|
|
Everybody Have Fun Tonight
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 11943
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| prolific
Posted:
Sat Feb 06, 2010 10:28 pm |
|
|
|
Miranda warnings apply when suspects are in police custody and under interrogation. In decisions subsequent to Miranda, the Court has emphasized that custody consists of the restriction of freedom of movement by police. This can occur in one's home (Orozco v. Texas, 1969), or in jail on an unrelated offense (Mathis v. United States, 1968). Public safety concerns, however, constitute an exemption to this requirement as the Court emphasized in New York v. Quarles (1984) when it ruled that emergency circumstances (e.g., the officer's immediate protection) do not require Miranda warnings, even if these situations could be describe as interrogations. Suspects who voluntarily go to a police station are not entitled to Miranda warnings unless arrested and drivers who are stopped by police for a routine traffic violation are also not entitled to Miranda warnings.
1. May 31st, 2005....Were J2K arrested, detained or in custody or did they 'voluntarily' go in and give statements to LE? If comparing to the US then it should be said they 'voluntarily' went in and gave a statement and were free to leave at any time? Were they arrested immediately after giving their statement?
2. Were they suspects when they voluntarily gave their statements?
3. Were their initial lying voluntary statements incriminating against them?
4. Were their lying original statements used against them later after they became official suspects and the reason they became suspects?
It's been fun but your honor I rest my case...it's all a moot point anyway because it happened in Aruba and according to their own laws they could have immediately been held on suspicion, they weren't. Would it have made a difference, who knows, but they certainly could have been legally detained on suspicion, separated and questioned more and who knows what other inconsistencies they may have found before the poolside meetings, calls to Satish making sure he knows the 'story' and meetings in the suspects bedroom making sure they got all of their 'stories straight'.
|
|
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 11146
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| iquitos
Posted:
Sat Feb 06, 2010 10:30 pm |
|
|
|
| WangChung wrote: | Just a quick station break -
Joran remains a free man because there's not a shred of credible evidence that Natalee Holloway was the victim of any crime*, much less one committed by Joran.
*Lousy parenting is not currently considered a crime. |
if it were most parents would be in jail.
|
|
Joined: 26 Mar 2006
Posts: 18730
Location: in my mind's eye
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| iquitos
Posted:
Sat Feb 06, 2010 10:33 pm |
|
|
|
what is the dutch equivalent of miranda?
i imagine any time they take a formal statement they have to tell people it can be used and they are not obligated to incriminate themselves.
|
|
Joined: 26 Mar 2006
Posts: 18730
Location: in my mind's eye
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Linda in L.A.
Posted:
Sun Feb 07, 2010 4:40 am |
|
|
|
| INK wrote: |
Hi Linda, I'm not petals, but even with the law stated as above a good defense attorney will make mincemeat of that argument in court. I've seen it done. There's quite a bit of room for interpretation and doubt. |
That may very well be INK...but the discussion wasn't can it not be defended. The discussion was can it be used...and it can. Heck...even if a statement is given and the defendant was read his rights...a good defense attorney can make mincemeat of the statement in court.
Anyone working in the legal field knows...the law is open to interpretation and it depends on whose interpetation is the best, each case, each judge. That's why you see both sides bringing in case law where it was interpreted both ways in a trial right?
|
|
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1820
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Linda in L.A.
Posted:
Sun Feb 07, 2010 5:09 am |
|
|
|
| petals wrote: |
Once again, I had to consult with my husband the attorney. He strongly disagrees with the first part of the statement you quoted (that Miranda does not apply to statements a person makes before they are arrested). According to him, Miranda has nothing to do with being arrested; it is read to people prior to taking statements, whether they have been arrested or not. It only affects the admissibility of statements. If a statement is taken from a "person of interest" who is then later arrested, the cops had better hope that they Mirandized the P of A prior to taking his statement or that statement will be useless in a Court of Law.
As for spontaneous statements or statements made after Miranda rights are read, well, duh. A person can always waive their rights and talk freely to the police without an attorney present. They can even incriminate themselves if they so choose.
Back to the topic of thread, if everything else were the same but the case happened in the States instead of Aruba, I doubt that anybody would have spent any time in custody. |
No problem with your husband the attorney strongly disagreeing with me...but he might want to look into that first part a bit better.
|
|
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1820
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
�
Jasidogdotcom template v.1.0.4 © jasidog.com
Powered by phpBB
© 2001, 2004 phpBB Group
|
