3 ms·

This article is ridiculous. It starts with the assertion "Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will not hear his Miranda rights before the FBI questions him Friday night." How do

by Jun8 14y ago

This article is ridiculous. It starts with the assertion "Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will not hear his Miranda rights before the FBI questions him Friday night." How do we or the author know this, is he assuming this is common practice, has FBI mentioned that they won't read him Miranda? Second, I was expecting him to mention a case where the police or FBI didn't read the rights to what turned out to be a non-threat/wrong accusation, etc. At least in all the cases mentioned this is not the case, the person presented a clear and present danger.

dopamean 14y ago
What I'm more curious about is whether or not he still has those rights even if they weren't read to him. I would assume he does no?
- mpyne 14y ago
  Yes, he does. The Miranda rights are (and were) always present, they only serve the function of ensuring that the citizens under arrest actually realize they have those rights.
- singlow 14y ago
  No. It may result in statements being inadmissible, but he will continue to be questioned even if he invokes his "rights" or asks for a lawyer.
Yxven 14y ago
From the front page of the new york times: "A federal law enforcement official said he would not be read his Miranda rights, because the authorities would be invoking the public safety exception in order to question him extensively about other potential explosive devices or accomplices and to try to gain intelligence." http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/20/us/boston-marathon-bombings.html?hp&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/20/us/boston-marathon-bombing...
- dragontamer 14y ago
  At which point, the Courts will say "you dun fucked up Police", and the self-incriminating evidence will be inadmissible to court, and not allowed to be told to the jury. And the police will win the case _anyway_ because we got so much evidence on this guy they can win the case in their sleep. So it all won't matter in the long run. Thats the good thing about the courts. The Police don't decide whether or not they're exercising the Public Safety Exception... the courts do.
buzzcut 14y ago
The author is a her.

by Jun8 14y ago

dopamean 14y ago

What I'm more curious about is whether or not he still has those rights even if they weren't read to him. I would assume he does no?

mpyne 14y ago
Yes, he does. The Miranda rights are (and were) always present, they only serve the function of ensuring that the citizens under arrest actually realize they have those rights.
singlow 14y ago
No. It may result in statements being inadmissible, but he will continue to be questioned even if he invokes his "rights" or asks for a lawyer.

Yxven 14y ago

From the front page of the new york times: "A federal law enforcement official said he would not be read his Miranda rights, because the authorities would be invoking the public safety exception in order to question him extensively about other potential explosive devices or accomplices and to try to gain intelligence." http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/20/us/boston-marathon-bombings.html?hp&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/20/us/boston-marathon-bombing...

dragontamer 14y ago
At which point, the Courts will say "you dun fucked up Police", and the self-incriminating evidence will be inadmissible to court, and not allowed to be told to the jury. And the police will win the case _anyway_ because we got so much evidence on this guy they can win the case in their sleep. So it all won't matter in the long run. Thats the good thing about the courts. The Police don't decide whether or not they're exercising the Public Safety Exception... the courts do.

buzzcut 14y ago

The author is a her.