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.
...what you mean it does not work like they say on T.V.? Good post. As a criminal defense lawyer I have found that TV has given a lot of people a view of the practice of law which is soooo far removed from what actually goes on day to day.
Maranda rights only apply if you are charge in a criminal coutrt in teh US. It does not aplly to those chrged in militray copurts which is the real point. It does not apply to any illegal conbtants at all in a war. There the rules are quite different. that has been the problem;in saying he committted the violation in the USA which there is a strong argument on just as there is on commission of the crime on the highseas.Mranda actually is only concerned with the admission of evidence in a criminal court in this country.Miranda is not a thing the governamnt agnet the police for example has to do if they don't want to quetion the suspect. The suspect can make statement still out of the emotion of the event that is still admissable in court.
Maranda rights only apply if you are charge in a criminal coutrt in teh US. It does not aplly to those chrged in militray copurts which is the real point. It does not apply to any illegal conbtants at all in a war. There the rules are quite different. that has been the problem;in saying he committted the violation in the USA which there is a strong argument on just as there is on commission of the crime on the highseas.Mranda actually is only concerned with the admission of evidence in a criminal court in this country.Miranda is not a thing the governamnt agnet the police for example has to do if they don't want to quetion the suspect. The suspect can make statement still out of the emotion of the event that is still admissable in court.
Did you happen to see this?
From the link:
"For example, John Lindh (the so-called American Taliban) was the first and paradigmatic case of an arrested enemy combatant. Lindh was questioned by an FBI agent while in custody near an Afghan battlefield. The agent first read Lindh his Miranda rights."
I was a Police Officer when the Miranda Ruling came down. The District Attorney of Philadelphia (Arlen Specter) said: "We'll sing them three verses of Yankee Doodle Dandy if the Supreme Court requires it. that won't impede a good interrogation"
Maranda rights only apply if you are charge in a criminal coutrt in teh US. It does not aplly to those chrged in militray copurts which is the real point. It does not apply to any illegal conbtants at all in a war. There the rules are quite different. that has been the problem;in saying he committted the violation in the USA which there is a strong argument on just as there is on commission of the crime on the highseas.Mranda actually is only concerned with the admission of evidence in a criminal court in this country.Miranda is not a thing the governamnt agnet the police for example has to do if they don't want to quetion the suspect. The suspect can make statement still out of the emotion of the event that is still admissable in court.
Agree, and is why I do not talk to any "gov't" agent in ANY situation which could be cause to have words taken out of context. The right to remain silent is the key...
As a criminal defense lawyer I have found that TV has given a lot of people a view of the practice of law which is soooo far removed from what actually goes on day to day.
Why should the practice of law be different from anything else? TV is basically an exercise in "artistic license"...sometimes starting with the evening news...
Maranda rights only apply if you are charge in a criminal coutrt in teh US. It does not aplly to those chrged in militray copurts which is the real point. It does not apply to any illegal conbtants at all in a war. There the rules are quite different. that has been the problem;in saying he committted the violation in the USA which there is a strong argument on just as there is on commission of the crime on the highseas.Mranda actually is only concerned with the admission of evidence in a criminal court in this country.Miranda is not a thing the governamnt agnet the police for example has to do if they don't want to quetion the suspect. The suspect can make statement still out of the emotion of the event that is still admissable in court.
Miranda applies as soon as somone is no longer considered free to go.
Did you happen to see this?
From the link:
"For example, John Lindh (the so-called American Taliban) was the first and paradigmatic case of an arrested enemy combatant. Lindh was questioned by an FBI agent while in custody near an Afghan battlefield. The agent first read Lindh his Miranda rights."
The FBI agent read Lindh his rights because he said he was an American citizen, and that fact required the agent to read him his rights as he was in clear violation of the Treason Act and would at the minimum be charged with that. But the article is also clear...at any point the Gov't wants to question you they must read you your rights, or those they are providing you with however limited they may be.
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.
