General Discussion

morningfog

(18,115 posts)

9. That is not how Miranda has been applied.

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 10:43 AM

Feb 2012

If you are Mirandized for Crime A, and make a voluntary confession to Crime B, I agree, it is and has been admissible.

If you are Mirandized for Crime A and are then interrogated on a wholly separate and independent Crime B, you should be and historically would be re-Mirandized for the second interrogation for the statements to be admissible.

This holding sets the stage for the reverse of your concern. Cops could arrest for a smaller crime, with just enough probable cause, and interrogate for the greater crime, of which they may have had little to no probable cause. If a person waives Miranda and speaks when they think they are being interrogated for a minor crime, they should not then be interrogated for a much more serious crime.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

30 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Supreme Court says prison inmates don�t have to be read rights in different investigations [View all] morningfog Feb 2012 OP

The Roberts court is fast becoming one of the worst courts in history. Justice wanted Feb 2012 #1

I can't believe Kagan went along with this holding. morningfog Feb 2012 #4

I did start a thread asking what is going on with Kagan. I thought she was a progressive. Justice wanted Feb 2012 #5

I have liked her writing and the majorities and dissents of hers morningfog Feb 2012 #13

You'd think after being arrested, tried and convicted they'd already have a firm grasp of the idea. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2012 #2

This would apply to anyone already in custody. Including those not yet tried or convicted morningfog Feb 2012 #3

If you've been Mirandized for Crime A then confress to Crime B Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2012 #6

I think the point is, once you are convicted of a crime, you lose certain rights. stevenleser Feb 2012 #8

You do, but there are many people in prison who have not be morningfog Feb 2012 #11

All the people in prison have been convicted. You are confusing prison with jail. nt stevenleser Feb 2012 #25

That is true for the most part. morningfog Feb 2012 #27

No doubt, by the very nature of the act of incarceration. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2012 #14

That is not how Miranda has been applied. morningfog Feb 2012 #9

But the knowledge of your 5A rights doesn't evaporate out of your head. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2012 #12

That has not been and should not be the standard. morningfog Feb 2012 #15

When people are sworn-in for giving testimony at a trial Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2012 #16

Witnesses at trial are not at risk of self-incrimination, morningfog Feb 2012 #17

Even if they were the defendant a single swearing-in is still sufficient. Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2012 #18

And confessions absent Miranda are per se coercive. morningfog Feb 2012 #19

Apples v Oranges Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2012 #24

This may surprise you, but prisoners are still protected by morningfog Feb 2012 #26

I'm as liberal as you can get BUT, dballance Feb 2012 #7

It isn't so easy or black-and-white. morningfog Feb 2012 #10

I don't think this ruling changes much. former9thward Feb 2012 #20

There are strict standards on what is admissible in those cases. morningfog Feb 2012 #21

why not do away with miranda entirely? frylock Feb 2012 #22

I dont agree. nt stevenleser Feb 2012 #23

the greatest mystery to me in American culture flexnor Feb 2012 #28

It is plain, and important. Which is why everyone should get it. morningfog Feb 2012 #29

Must see youtube on miranda warning by law professor flexnor Feb 2012 #30