Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No one (including Obama) is trying to take anyone's rights away. Did you actually read the article, or did you just read the headline?
Just because Obama wants the Supreme Court to overrule a decision stating that defendants can't be questioned without a lawyer present, doesn't mean that Obama wants to force people to speak without a lawyer present. He simply wants to give police the option to ASK questions before a lawyer is present. Defendants don't need to answer anything, if they choose not to. Obama is simply wanting to give defendants the OPTION of answering, should they choose to.
Again, no one's rights will be taken away. Get a clue.
Spin, spin, spin. You obviouslt did not read the entire article or you would know the concern.
It does in its way in that the bright line that Michigan v Jackson draws with respect to Sixth Amendment assistance of counsel issues was borrowed from the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination standards of Miranda and Edwards v Arizona. One's actual position on Michigan v Jackson might hang in part on whether one saw these two protections as being related apsects of the same right or as distinct rights, each of which exists on its own.
This further clarifies the need for Michigan v Jackson.
If the Government were to win the onus would then be on the defendent to prove that he was coerced or cajoled into making false statements. All of this after requesting a lawyer. His word against the cops.
The Government isn't going to win, as it's not a party to the case. It merely submitted an amicus brief in response to a request from the Court for such briefs. Otherwise, the implications drawn are unwarranted. The Court would have to strike down much more than Michigan v Jackson to arrive at a state where police could profit from initiating direct conversation after the attachment of Sixth Amendment rights, which occurs upon pretty much any credible statement of a desire for counsel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by padcrasher
In that sense it is an erosion of rights. As it stands now once the lawyer or request for a lawyer is made that ends the admissible conversation between the cops and suspect.
There would be no change in that regard if Jackson were modified. It is not this case that enforces those rights.
The Government isn't going to win, as it's not a party to the case. It merely submitted an amicus brief in response to a request from the Court for such briefs. Otherwise, the implications drawn are unwarranted. The Court would have to strike down much more than Michigan v Jackson to arrive at a state where police could profit from initiating direct conversation after the attachment of Sixth Amendment rights, which occurs upon pretty much any credible statement of a desire for counsel.
There would be no change in that regard if Jackson were modified. It is not this case that enforces those rights.
Alito and Scalia share your view and Ginsberg and Stevens don't based on their questioning. It is interesting to see Obama is aligning himself with the conservative side of the court.
Last edited by shorebaby; 04-26-2009 at 07:45 AM..
Hopefully people will read the briefs that were posted and decide for themselves. One of the arguments the government makes is the cost of complying witht the law, if that isn't administrative I am not sure what is.
Well, let's be a little more forthright here by noting that the costs referred to in the DOJ brief are not financial costs of compliance, but rather costs to the truth-seeking function of the judicial system in the loss of otherwise valid probative evidence, an event which the DOJ concedes is quite infrequent, while noting that even such low costs are not justified by the meager benefits that the particulars of Jackson provide.
Jackson serves no real purpose and fits poorly with this Court’s recent precedent; although the decision only occasionally prevents federal prosecutors from obtaining appropriate convictions, even that cost outweighs the decision’s meager benefits.
It is the other side that touts the administrative benefits of an absolute rule against initiating any form of communication on any topic once Sixth Amendment rights have attached. One might easily infer that police are taken to be either so stupid or so craven that only a blanket prohibition against police-initiated communication in any form can serve to protect the interests of the accused from an official bent toward invidious enterprise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby
It is also clear that it isn't simply a house keeping change as you imply, it is a change to defendents rights. I can't understand why Obama would pick this fight at this time the law has been in effect for over 20 years. The change clearly diminishes defendents rights, despite your efforts to support Obama's position.
It isn't at all clear that there would be any loss in a defendant's rights, and the administration did not choose the time and is not trying to pick a fight. The Supreme Court requested briefs on the topic and the DOJ complied. End of story. The matter that the Court seeks on its own to take up from within Montejo is not whether Sixth Amendment rights exist, but the proper choice of judicial standards and implications under which those rights are to be protected.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby
People please glance at the briefs and decide for yourself what the truth is. This is a swummary of NYU's concerns.
Where they set out pleadings over the special vulnerabilities of the poor, uneducated, and minorities -- none of which is doubted, but none of which is actually material to the case. No matter any other condition or circumstance, attachment and the protections it affords cannot manifest until those accused have managed in one credible way or another to express a desire for counsel. That much they must accomplish on their own. The issues regarding Michigan v Jackson and all the other related cases deal with what can and more particularly cannot happen at the instigation of police AFTER attachment has occurred. Those strictures apply or do not apply independent of any characteristic of an accused.
Well, let's be a little more forthright here by noting that the costs referred to in the DOJ brief are not financial costs of compliance, but rather costs to the truth-seeking function of the judicial system in the loss of otherwise valid probative evidence, an event which the DOJ concedes is quite infrequent, while noting that even such low costs are not justified by the meager benefits that the particulars of Jackson provide.
Jackson serves no real purpose and fits poorly with this Court’s recent precedent; although the decision only occasionally prevents federal prosecutors from obtaining appropriate convictions, even that cost outweighs the decision’s meager benefits.
It is the other side that touts the administrative benefits of an absolute rule against initiating any form of communication on any topic once Sixth Amendment rights have attached. One might easily infer that police are taken to be either so stupid or so craven that only a blanket prohibition against police-initiated communication in any form can serve to protect the interests of the accused from an official bent toward invidious enterprise.
It isn't at all clear that there would be any loss in a defendant's rights, and the administration did not choose the time and is not trying to pick a fight. The Supreme Court requested briefs on the topic and the DOJ complied. End of story. The matter that the Court seeks on its own to take up from within Montejo is not whether Sixth Amendment rights exist, but the proper choice of judicial standards and implications under which those rights are to be protected.
Where they set out pleadings over the special vulnerabilities of the poor, uneducated, and minorities -- none of which is doubted, but none of which is actually material to the case. No matter any other condition or circumstance, attachment and the protections it affords cannot manifest until those accused have managed in one credible way or another to express a desire for counsel. That much they must accomplish on their own. The issues regarding Michigan v Jackson and all the other related cases deal with what can and more particularly cannot happen at the instigation of police AFTER attachment has occurred. Those strictures apply or do not apply independent of any characteristic of an accused.
The court asked for briefs, you are the lawyer so correct me if I am wrong but the Obama administration could have chosen to join the Ginsberg wing of the court (suggested by their questioning) and the legal aid lawyers, and civil rights groups rather than the Scalia wing of the court and the state governments. Or alternately can the government decline to file a brief?
Again Michigan v Jackson seems to attach rights that are not covered elsewhere. At least that is what Legal aid, civil rights groups and Ginsberg et al (by virtue of their questioning) are arguing. In any event you are presenting only one side of the argument. If it was as clear cut as you suggest the law would not have stood for 23 years and the arguments before the court would be clearly one sided. My reading of the arguments do not suggest that is the case.
Last edited by shorebaby; 04-26-2009 at 08:27 AM..
This further clarifies the need for Michigan v Jackson.
It sets out a list of cases that are not Michigan v Jackson that support and protect the Sixth Amendment rights in question. If Jackson were the lone barrier to police misconduct, there wouldn't be a debate here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby
This instructive look at which justices supported which position.
Justices do not indicate support for one side or the other at oral argument. They raise questions as to the legal foundations of the positions raised by petitioner and respondent. There are no people who predict case outcomes on the basis of questioning at oral argument whose resumes are not de facto litanies of having been very badly burned.
....chipping away very slowly. Little bit by little bit.Day by Day. And then one day you wake up and you finally see the massive hole...when it's too late.
Alito and Scalia share your view and Ginsberg and Stevens don't based on their questioning. It is interesting to see Obama is aligning himself with the conservative side of the court.
Obama isn't doing any aligning at all, and matters of law are generally thought to be best decided on the merits, not on whether a position can be characterized by partisans as being either liberal or conservative. It is held by all sides in this matter that the state may not use its vast machinery or expertise to defraud citizens of their Constitutional rights. At issue only are a few particulars among a much grander scheme arranged to assure that this prohibition is properly and consistently maintained.
The court asked for briefs, you are the lawyer so correct me if I am wrong but the Obama administration could have chosen to join the Ginsberg wing of the court (suggested by their questioning) and the legal aid lawyers, and civil rights groups rather than the Scalia wing of the court and the state governments. Or alternately can the government decline to file a brief?
Actually, I would be the economist, but yes, the DOJ could have declined to file a brief. Given however that the Supreme Court was clearly interested in hearing the views of significant players that that the federal courts inherit all Constitutional issues not clearly and consistently resolved at the state level, it would not have been a particularly graceful step to have declined. Neither would it have been particularly praiseworthy to submit a brief drawn but from partisan spin. If the government were convinced that Michigan v Jackson does indeed provide material protections not available elsewhere under the law, the DOJ amicus brief would have read very differently. In fact, they are convinced that it does not, and on that account have said so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby
Again Michigan v Jackson seems to attach rights that are not covered elsewhere.
What are they?
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby
At least that is what Legal aid, civil rights groups and Ginsberg et al (by virtue of their questioning) are arguing.
They are arguing the importance of a generality that everyone concedes, the administrative efficiency of relying on a blanket rule, and the idea that whatever the flaws in Jackson, they do not rise to the sort of level necessary to preempt stare decisis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby
In any event you are presenting only one side of the argument. If it was as clear cut as you suggest the law would not have stood for 23 years and the arguments before the court would be clearly one sided. My reading of the arguments do not suggest that is the case.
While remaining on the books, the decision in Jackson has been undermined in its logic by several Court decisions since. I am meanwhile presenting the side of the argument that was assailed as an attempt to "take away rights", which it is not.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You obviouslt did not read the entire article or you would know the concern.
