Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-20-2013, 01:54 PM
 
Location: NJ/NY
10,655 posts, read 18,663,385 times
Reputation: 2829

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nonarchist View Post
It was done!

Every participant in the Iraqi murder cases confessed to every detail.

They knowingly confessed to their crimes knowing on military advice that what they did was a crime.

This was done with the video evidence of their crime, concealed from the prosecutors.

This is why they were never prosecuted.

The military never dreamed that the video would be released to the public.

That Bradley Manning guy caused an "embarrassment".
AGAIN

This has NOTHING TO DO with CIVILIAN CRIMINAL COURT.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-20-2013, 01:54 PM
 
Location: NC
9,984 posts, read 10,392,719 times
Reputation: 3086
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nonarchist View Post
That only works if his confession is used as evidence against him in court. If the confession is never used, then all the other evidence can be lawfully excluded as evidence against him.
No you are wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2013, 01:56 PM
 
3,846 posts, read 2,384,804 times
Reputation: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bideshi View Post
No one exerts force on this Justice department except Obama. Holder blatantly ignores the Constitution and rule of law.

Well, THAT goes without saying.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2013, 01:57 PM
 
3,846 posts, read 2,384,804 times
Reputation: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent View Post
No you are wrong.

Look up the case, student.

Or, non-case, I should say.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2013, 02:01 PM
 
31,387 posts, read 37,048,770 times
Reputation: 15038
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtoli View Post
The ONLY thing that can be excluded when a suspect is not Mirandized is his TESTIMONY. If evidence is obtained PRIOR to questioning him it absolutely CANNOT be excluded based on anything he says.
I'll give you a 92 on that post because IF the statement(s) is excluded as a result of a failure to Marandize the defendant all evidence obtained as a result of that testimony is subject to exclusion as well. I say if and might because everything depends on the specific facts before the judge.

By the way, a useful article explaining the “public safety exception.” to Mirandizing a terrorist suspects.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Miranda Rights: The public safety exception and terrorism cases. - Slate Magazine

By the way, I take serious exception to her final paragraph where she writes,
And so the FBI will surely ask 19-year-old Tsarnaev anything it sees fit. Not just what law enforcement needs to know to prevent a terrorist threat and keep the public safe but anything else it deemed related to “valuable and timely intelligence.”
such supposition has no place in an otherwise note worthy article.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2013, 02:03 PM
 
Location: NJ/NY
10,655 posts, read 18,663,385 times
Reputation: 2829
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
I'll give you a 92 on that post because IF the statement(s) is excluded as a result of a failure to Marandize the defendant all evidence obtained as a result of that testimony is subject to exclusion as well. I say if and might because everything depends on the specific facts before the judge.

By the way, a useful article explaining the “public safety exception.” to Mirandizing a terrorist suspects.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Miranda Rights: The public safety exception and terrorism cases. - Slate Magazine

By the way, I take serious exception to her final paragraph where she writes,
And so the FBI will surely ask 19-year-old Tsarnaev anything it sees fit. Not just what law enforcement needs to know to prevent a terrorist threat and keep the public safe but anything else it deemed related to “valuable and timely intelligence.”
such supposition has no place in an otherwise note worthy article.
Yes, if he, for example said "I placed the bomb at the intersection of Main and Grove, at 3pm", and they had not found that footage yet, they might not be able to use said footage, since they would find it based on his answers to questions asked while not mirandized.

Since they already have the footage, well before his arrest, in this case, it wouldn't matter
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2013, 02:06 PM
 
Location: NC
9,984 posts, read 10,392,719 times
Reputation: 3086
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nonarchist View Post
Look up the case, student.

Or, non-case, I should say.
You are wrong. I have studied Criminal Procedure investigation. The only things a miranda violation protects against are statements and "fruit of the poisonous tree" evidence.

If what you were saying was true there would be absolute no point for the entire fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine or the attenuation doctrine. Since according to you they wouldn't matter since everything would be excluded anyway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2013, 02:06 PM
 
3,846 posts, read 2,384,804 times
Reputation: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nonarchist View Post
That only works if the confession is used as evidence against him in court. If the confession is never used, then all the other evidence, coincident to the confessionary evidence, can be lawfully excluded as evidence against him.
It has been done.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2013, 02:09 PM
 
3,846 posts, read 2,384,804 times
Reputation: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent View Post
You are wrong. I have studied Criminal Procedure investigation. The only things a miranda violation protects against are statements and "fruit of the poisonous tree" evidence.

If what you were saying was true there would be absolute no point for the entire fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine or the attenuation doctrine. Since according to you they wouldn't matter since everything would be excluded anyway.
Hey, it happens when the "prosecutor" doubles as the defense counsel.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2013, 02:11 PM
 
Location: NC
9,984 posts, read 10,392,719 times
Reputation: 3086
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nonarchist View Post
Hey, it happens when the "prosecutor" doubles as the defense counsel.
You do realize that there is such a thing as prosecutorial discretion and as such if the "prosecutor" wants to double as defense council they won't bring a case in the first place.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:56 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top