Interesting - they are saying that his admission should be thrown out because he waived his Miranda without his attorney present? And he didn't hire the attorney? It was simply appointed to him, he didn't ask to meet with they guy and didn't tell the cops "I'd like to speak to my attorney" - he instead said "Yeah, I shot him - let me show you where the gun is."
Uh... am I missing something? Cause, that seems rather logical.
I'm probably reading it completey wrong, but wouldn't that imply that the cops can keep grilling you until your lawyer is present and use whatever they get instead of stopping the interview? And if your lawyer happens to "not get the message" or not show up for an extended period of time due to being in court or something...
Is there a book or anything I can read on my own that would help me make more accurate sense of legal decisions? Or do you just get to guess if you haven't gone to law school.
After reading a bit of the caselaw - I thinnk where the dissenters are coming from is the theory that the guys didn't properly waive his Miranda rights. He was tricked, basically. Although I don't see how in hell they get that
( ... )
I was more concerned about the ruling they overturned. If a ruling gets overturned does it get completely wiped out, or are there now exceptions to it in situations like the case that overturned it?
In the case they actually heard, the guy was obviously a moron for talking. He had still been appointed a lawyer at a hearing though, and it sounds like they continued questioning him after that. Unless he was just beating the walls down to be heard or something, I don't see how they should have been questioning him about it at all. Even if they did marandize him again to remind him, he still had other protections under the Michigan v Jackson ruling. He had been appointed a lawyer and the police should have stopped until the lawyer arrived, assming none of the evidence would be useful because it's not supposed to be admissible.
Law enforcement can legally trick you, and you have the right to have a lawyer there to attempt to protect you from it. That's how I was looking at it.
Comments 6
Reply
Uh... am I missing something? Cause, that seems rather logical.
Reply
Is there a book or anything I can read on my own that would help me make more accurate sense of legal decisions? Or do you just get to guess if you haven't gone to law school.
Reply
Reply
In the case they actually heard, the guy was obviously a moron for talking. He had still been appointed a lawyer at a hearing though, and it sounds like they continued questioning him after that. Unless he was just beating the walls down to be heard or something, I don't see how they should have been questioning him about it at all. Even if they did marandize him again to remind him, he still had other protections under the Michigan v Jackson ruling. He had been appointed a lawyer and the police should have stopped until the lawyer arrived, assming none of the evidence would be useful because it's not supposed to be admissible.
Law enforcement can legally trick you, and you have the right to have a lawyer there to attempt to protect you from it. That's how I was looking at it.
Reply
Leave a comment