PDA

View Full Version : Text of FBI Memo on when they feel Miranda warnings are not necessary (NYTimes 2010)




sailingaway
04-20-2013, 01:18 AM
since they are not proceeding under NDAA, which is an entirely separate kettle of worms.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/us/25miranda-text.html?_r=0

CPUd
04-20-2013, 02:02 AM
So basically, he can give an unwarned statement that can't not be inadmissible as evidence on the grounds that they didn't give Miranda warning, but if they were to use it at trial as evidence against the defendant, then the defendant can claim violation of their 5th Amendment rights.

WhistlinDave
04-20-2013, 04:37 AM
So basically, he can give an unwarned statement that can't not be inadmissible as evidence on the grounds that they didn't give Miranda warning, but if they were to use it at trial as evidence against the defendant, then the defendant can claim violation of their 5th Amendment rights.

Sounds right. I mean it sounds correct for what the article/memo said.

better-dead-than-fed
04-20-2013, 04:55 AM
If the cops invoke the Quarles exception, they can skip the warnings and still report your statements to the jury as evidence against you. This is clarified in Justice Marshall's dissent in the Quarles case: "Under the majority's exception, police would be permitted to interrogate suspects about such matters before the suspects have been advised of their constitutional rights. Without being 'deterred' by the knowledge that they have a constitutional right not to respond, these suspects will be likely to answer the questions. Should the answers also be incriminating, the State would be free to introduce them as evidence in a criminal prosecution." --
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13717772316457971707&hl=en&as_sdt=2,3

The final paragraph of the FBI memo seems to contradict what I'm saying, but I think I'm correct here.

itshappening
04-20-2013, 05:15 AM
What is the implication of NOT reading his rights? What if he doesn't talk or co-operate? Do they want to extract information from him through beating, waterboarding and other forms of torture?

better-dead-than-fed
04-20-2013, 05:50 AM
Generally if you know your rights and exercise them, the government's failure to read the Miranda warnings becomes irrelevant. But they're going to commit this guy for a competency evaluation under 18 USC 4241(b), and if he exercises his right to remain silent there, a DOJ psychiatrist will find him incompetent and he'll then be civilly committed until the DOJ determines that he's no longer dangerous (never).

Federal pre-trial incarceration is physically grueling, even without overt torture. Each time you go to court, they take you out of your cell at midnight and shackle you. You remain shackled until you get back to the jail twenty hours later. The holding cells are overcrowded. It's worse than I can describe. The physical ordeal of going to court is a major factor pressuring many defendants to plead guilty instead of going to trial. Physically forced confessions are the rule, not the exception, in the federal system.

CPUd
04-20-2013, 06:36 AM
Generally if you know your rights and exercise them, the government's failure to read the Miranda warnings becomes irrelevant. But they're going to commit this guy for a competency evaluation under 18 USC 4241(b), and if he exercises his right to remain silent there, a DOJ psychiatrist will find him incompetent and he'll then be civilly committed until the DOJ determines that he's no longer dangerous (never).

Federal pre-trial incarceration is physically grueling, even without overt torture. Each time you go to court, they take you out of your cell at midnight and shackle you. You remain shackled until you get back to the jail twenty hours later. The holding cells are overcrowded. It's worse than I can describe. The physical ordeal of going to court is a major factor pressuring many defendants to plead guilty instead of going to trial. Physically forced confessions are the rule, not the exception, in the federal system.

This guy will be in solitary, and they feed him the minimum they are required to in order to keep him alive. If he was as social as they are claiming, in a couple months he will be climbing the walls.

Constitutional Paulicy
04-20-2013, 07:27 AM
US ATTORNEY: NO MIRANDA DUE TO THREAT TO PUBLIC SAFETY

Rachel Maddow..... http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/vp/51603400/#51603400

phill4paul
04-20-2013, 07:34 AM
Generally if you know your rights and exercise them, the government's failure to read the Miranda warnings becomes irrelevant. But they're going to commit this guy for a competency evaluation under 18 USC 4241(b), and if he exercises his right to remain silent there, a DOJ psychiatrist will find him incompetent and he'll then be civilly committed until the DOJ determines that he's no longer dangerous (never).

Federal pre-trial incarceration is physically grueling, even without overt torture. Each time you go to court, they take you out of your cell at midnight and shackle you. You remain shackled until you get back to the jail twenty hours later. The holding cells are overcrowded. It's worse than I can describe. The physical ordeal of going to court is a major factor pressuring many defendants to plead guilty instead of going to trial. Physically forced confessions are the rule, not the exception, in the federal system.

^^^ +rep

itshappening
04-20-2013, 07:37 AM
The US Attorney who is responsible for the death of Aaron Swartz (according to his family) is saying they're not ruling out the electric chair.

SHe is eagerly lookiing forward to killing another young man.

He's been convicted on the basis of a 30 second video of him and his brother walking round a block and a few pics of him in the vicinity.

Unbelievable.

The kid has no chance and should have just gone out in a hail of bullets.

jmdrake
04-20-2013, 07:53 AM
So in other words, all of this talk about why enemy combatants need to be tried in military courts because "You can't Mirandize them on the battlefield" is hogwash.