3 ms·

>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 warni

• ghayes 13y 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 13y 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 13y 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.