CrimLaw

________________________________________________________________________________
My Web Site

The federal supreme court has taken a pro se appeal of a Miranda issue. Pro Se? Or Pro Se with law students or pro bono help?

This is an interesting issue. On one side is the concern that on occasion, after an officer has arrested a subject that the officer might place the suspect somewhere while he searches the car and another officer come up and assume mirandization and get a confession before he realizes the mistake (or some other similar mistake). The argument (one accepted in the courts wherein I work) is that if the officer then makes sure the suspect knows his rights and then re-asks the same questions the suspect is put on notice and the mistake cured.

On the other side is the fact that it is easier to get information that you want if you do not tell someone that he doesn't have to talk to you and that he is entitled to an attorney. And reading someone his Miranda rights after you have the confession does not mean you have to tell him that his prior confession is not evidence. So the suspect thinks he's just repeating the same story he's already told. There is a definite incentive to ask questions, get statements, then mirandize and re-ask the questions.

In all honesty, the first scenario does happen; it shouldn't, but police are human and at 3:45 in the morning just as vulnerable to mistakes as the rest of us. Nonetheless, any exception should be for the rare occasion. The problem is that when a decision is made with that rare occasion in mind it becomes the standard for all police. Rather than the exception it is now the rule and constitutional rights are weakened for all of us.

Maybe the solution is a signed paper stating that the suspect understands anything he has told the officers in response to their questions is not admissable if it was said before he had his rights explained to him?

::: ::: :::