Supreme Court undercuts Miranda rights

[cali]

Supreme Court: Suspects must assert right to silence


By Joan Biskupic, USA TODAY
A divided Supreme Court scaled back the well-known Miranda right Tuesday and enhanced prosecutors' ability to assert that a suspect waived his right to remain silent even when he did not say so.

By a 5-4 vote, the justices said that once rights have been read and questioning begun, a suspect must clearly declare that he wants to remain silent and cannot simply be silent.

The decision in a Michigan case broke along ideological lines, with Justice Anthony Kennedy writing the opinion, joined by fellow conservatives. The four liberals dissented in an opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a former Manhattan prosecutor who warned that the decision "turns Miranda upside down."

She said defendants often use equivocal or colloquial language in attempting to invoke their right to silence and that requiring a clear declaration would weaken the right.

"There is no question that this decision authorizes lower courts to construe ambiguous situations in favor of police and prosecutors," said Stanford University law professor Robert Weisberg.

<snip>

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2010-06-01-supreme-court-miranda-rights_N.htm?csp=hf

[LAGC]

1. That's a tough one.

While I support the ACLU and agree that this decision erodes Miranda, I find it hard to feel much sympathy towards those who incriminate themselves after being warned, even if it is hours later. You have to be smart enough to assert your rights, you can't just wish you did after the fact!

Edit to add: I suppose the real issue here is whether police should be questioning a suspect for hours if he does remain silent, even if he doesn't tell them to stop... that's more questionable.

[Nailzberg]

2. I agree. Say "I want a lawyer present" and STFU.

Miranda mandates you must be advised you of your right to counsel and against self-incrimination. If you choose to answer questions after being informed of your rights, that's stupidity.

One thing I picked out of this article that bugged me: "a suspect must clearly declare that he wants to remain silent and cannot simply be silent."

The whole reason this went to the Supremes is the suspect DIDN'T stay silent. Police asked questions after Miranda, and he answered them. That's still admissible. So in a way, this strengthens Miranda, because now if you ask for a lawyer or state you wish to remain silent, the cops can not continue questioning in hopes you'll incriminate yourself. It leaves no gray area over the admissibility of testimony if you state you are invokingyour rights. No more marathon interrogations to break you down.

Perhaps another line is needed in the Miranda warnings to the style of "If you choose to invoke your rights, all questioning must cease until legal representation had been provided to you." Of course, that will never fly with the DA's office.

[pepperbear]

3. yeah, it does say "eveything you say can and will be used".....n/t

[retread]

4. It's not a matter of smart vs stupid. n/t

[Bonobo]

5. What about when there are language difficulties?

Foreign language speaker, hard-of-hearing, stuttering, tourettes, you name it. Police will take advantage and the courts will interpret in their favor.

This is a BAD decision.

[Hubert Flottz]

6. How did I guess this was a 5 to 4 vote?

Another step closer to the police state.