4 ms·

"Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will not hear his Miranda rights before the FBI questions him Friday night" [id.] This implies he'll be going through a potentially long int

by ghayes 14y ago

"Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will not hear his Miranda rights before the FBI questions him Friday night" [id.] This implies he'll be going through a potentially long interrogation with the FBI that may be admittable as evidence, without having been given a Miranda warning. There is definitely something about this application of the "public safety exception", and the stare decisis discussed in the article, that gives cause for concern. We generally prefer citizens to know of their fifth amendment protections prior to a custodial interrogation. The fact he was in possession of a weapon or other armaments in his person should not defeat this aim.

cube13 14y ago
>This implies he'll be going through a potentially long interrogation with the FBI that may be admittable as evidence, without having been given a Miranda warning. Any statements before the Miranda warning are inadmissable in court: http://www.volokh.com/2010/05/05/shahzad-and-miranda-rights/ http://www.volokh.com/2010/05/05/shahzad-and-miranda-rights/
- ghayes 14y ago
  "if the defendant is in possession of information regarding ... exigent circumstances which require protection of the public, the defendant may be questioned without warning and his responses, though incriminating, will be admissible in evidence"[1] The public safety exception allows for some latitude for police to gather admissible information prior to giving a miranda warning. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona
  - eropple 14y ago
    This is correct. However, as I understand it, a defense attorney can throw holy hell to prevent the admission of such statements in court and has a decent chance of winning. They don't need him to say a word to convict him of a staggering number and severity of crimes. I would be surprised if they even bother trying to admit as evidence anything he says during interrogation, and after chatting with a couple of con-law lawyers who all concurred I feel that's a pretty fair guess.
- jellicle 14y ago
  > Any statements before the Miranda warning are inadmissable in court: That is completely false, and suggests you haven't read anything in this entire thread discussing these issues, including the link you link to.
JoeAltmaier 14y ago
Lets remember, this guys is just one guy. They have enough on him to put him away for life, even should he say nothing, ever. Public safety is involved because, lets see, millions of people were locked in their homes, a public curfew was in effect, the dead were piling up, and no one knew how many more bombs or co-conspirators were still at large. They have a duty to learn the full extent of the terrorism, and protect the public, First. Then, worry about prosecuting this one guy's sorry ass.

by ghayes 14y ago

cube13 14y ago

>This implies he'll be going through a potentially long interrogation with the FBI that may be admittable as evidence, without having been given a Miranda warning. Any statements before the Miranda warning are inadmissable in court: http://www.volokh.com/2010/05/05/shahzad-and-miranda-rights/ http://www.volokh.com/2010/05/05/shahzad-and-miranda-rights/

ghayes 14y ago
"if the defendant is in possession of information regarding ... exigent circumstances which require protection of the public, the defendant may be questioned without warning and his responses, though incriminating, will be admissible in evidence"[1] The public safety exception allows for some latitude for police to gather admissible information prior to giving a miranda warning. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona
- eropple 14y ago
  This is correct. However, as I understand it, a defense attorney can throw holy hell to prevent the admission of such statements in court and has a decent chance of winning. They don't need him to say a word to convict him of a staggering number and severity of crimes. I would be surprised if they even bother trying to admit as evidence anything he says during interrogation, and after chatting with a couple of con-law lawyers who all concurred I feel that's a pretty fair guess.
jellicle 14y ago
> Any statements before the Miranda warning are inadmissable in court: That is completely false, and suggests you haven't read anything in this entire thread discussing these issues, including the link you link to.

JoeAltmaier 14y ago

Lets remember, this guys is just one guy. They have enough on him to put him away for life, even should he say nothing, ever. Public safety is involved because, lets see, millions of people were locked in their homes, a public curfew was in effect, the dead were piling up, and no one knew how many more bombs or co-conspirators were still at large. They have a duty to learn the full extent of the terrorism, and protect the public, First. Then, worry about prosecuting this one guy's sorry ass.