Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
No Lawyer for You!
Topic Started: Apr 25 2009, 06:57 AM (91 Views)
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
They said if I voted for McCain, I'd end up with an administration determined to wipe out civil rights, and they were right!
Quote:
 
The effort to sweep aside the 23-year-old Michigan vs Jackson ruling is one of several moves by the new government to have dismayed civil rights groups. …

The Michigan vs Jackson ruling in 1986 established that, if a defendants have a lawyer or have asked for one to be present, police may not interview them until the lawyer is present.

Any such questioning cannot be used in court even if the suspect agrees to waive his right to a lawyer because he would have made that decision without legal counsel, said the Supreme Court.

However, in a current case that seeks to change the law, the US Justice Department argues that the existing rule is unnecessary and outdated.

The sixth amendment of the US constitution protects the right of criminal suspects to be “represented by counsel”, but the Obama regime argues that this merely means to “protect the adversary process” in a criminal trial.

The Justice Department, in a brief signed by Elena Kagan, the solicitor general, said the 1986 decision “serves no real purpose” and offers only “meagre benefits”.


WIARHDI?

What if Bush!tler/POFDBurton had done this? Imagine the outcry of civil libertarians everywhere. However, we get this from a British newspaper. Read more at SCOTUSBLOG.



A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Scratch a ....
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
I'll be interested to see what Quirt says on this one.

Another interpretation:
Quote:
 
The Obama administration has not argued that the police should not provide lawyers to criminal suspects, or anything like it.

Michigan v. Jackson covers what happens after the defendant gets to court — namely, the following situation:

Defendant is arraigned in court and asserts his right to counsel. Police then approach him and advise him of his Miranda rights. He waives them. They advise him that he has a right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment. He waives it. He then voluntarily provides a confession to the crime. (You can even assume that the confession is recorded, so that we know all these waivers were properly obtained, and there was no coercion involved.)

A court will still suppress that voluntary confession., because of Michigan v. Jackson, which says that any confession resulting from interrogation initiated by the police must be suppressed if the right to counsel has been asserted by the defendant at his arraignment.

The Justice Department is simply arguing that a defendant should be able to waive these rights and give a voluntary confession that won’t be suppressed. Horrors!

(some) claim that the Justice Department’s brief shows that we have an “autocratic administration determined to wipe out civil rights.” We may have such an administration, but this legal position is not evidence of it.


and later...
Quote:
 
a Telegraph article that misunderstands the scope of Michigan v. Jackson. That article says:
Quote:
 
The Michigan vs Jackson ruling in 1986 established that, if a defendants have a lawyer or have asked for one to be present, police may not interview them until the lawyer is present.

No, it didn’t. Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) had (prior to Michigan v. Jackson) ruled that a defendant who has been advised of his Miranda rights and has clearly requested a lawyer cannot be further questioned by police unless the defendant re-initiates the conversation. The Justice Department has not asked for this ruling to be re-visited, and indeed its brief assumes Edwards’s continuing validity. Also, contra the Telegraph article, whether the defendant “ha a lawyer” has nothing to do with the issue if he has not asserted his right to counsel in court with respect to the case concerning which the police wish to question him.

(another blogger) says:
Quote:
 
Americans have the right to counsel at all stages of the process, not just in court, as Obama argues. The adversarial process begins with arrest and interrogation, not when people first face a judge.

But Michigan v. Jackson deals only with what happens after people first face a judge, which is where the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches. Interrogation before arraignment is not covered by the Sixth Amendment and has nothing to do with what this brief is arguing.


A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply