Obama DOJ Seeks to Restrict Defendant's Right to Lawyer During Questioning

[flyarm]

( I am posting this for a second time for those who did not see it!)


Obama DOJ Seeks to Restrict Defendant's Right to Lawyer During Questioning

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/4/23/221528/555
Obama DOJ Seeks to Restrict Defendant's Right to Lawyer During Questioning
By Jeralyn, Section Crime Policy
Posted on Thu Apr 23, 2009 at 09:15:28 PM EST

More true colors?

The Justice Department is asking the Supreme Court to overrule Michigan v. Jackson, the 1986 Supreme Court decision that held that if police may not interrogate a defendant after the right to counsel has attached, if the defendant has a lawyer or has requested a lawyer.

he protection offered by the court in Stevens' 1986 opinion is especially important for vulnerable defendants, including the mentally and developmentally disabled, addicts, juveniles and the poor,

This isn't the first time the Justice Department, under President Obama, has sought to limit defendants' rights.


Since taking office, Obama has drawn criticism for backing the continued imprisonment of enemy combatants in Afghanistan without trial, invoking the "state secrets" privilege to avoid releasing information in lawsuits and limiting the rights of prisoners to test genetic evidence used to convict them.

The idea of overruling the decision originated with Justice Alito during oral arguments in the case of Jesse Montejo, a Louisiana death row inmate. Even some prominent former prosecutors and judges are not on board with changing the rule:

[midnight]

1. There are more important decisions the supremes need to

overrule. Taking away individual rights should not be a focus in this environment of staggering abuses.

[flyarm]

3. No kidding..this is change i had to wait my entire life for , to lose my rights!!

Wow..great change..lose our rights to an attorney..whippee...the change that will screw our kids lives for ever..

Oh and Jeralyn is an attorney..and is on TV all the time as an expert on many news shows..she was the expert on the Jon Benet murder many times ..( for those that do know know who wrote this piece.)

Is this the change, to your basic rights, you thought you would get?????????

[cali]

2. This is just bad. time to flood the White House with calls and emails

opposing this

[flyarm]

4. "You have the right to an attorney present during questioning." whoops not anymore ..if

Obama gets our rights changed!!



"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights?"



In the United States, the Miranda warning is a warning given by police to criminal suspects in police custody, or in a custodial situation, before they are asked guilt-seeking questions relating to the commission of a crime. A custodial situation is one in which the suspect's freedom of movement is restrained although he or she is not under arrest. An incriminating statement by a suspect will not constitute admissible evidence unless the suspect was advised of his or her "Miranda rights" and made a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of those rights (the term "Miranda rights" is somewhat misleading, as the mandated Miranda warning simply clarifies preexisting Constitutional rights). However, a 2004 Supreme Court ruling upheld state "stop-and-identify" laws, allowing police to require biographical information such as name, date of birth, and address, without arresting suspects or providing them Miranda warnings.

The Miranda warnings were mandated by the 1966 United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Miranda v. Arizona as a means of protecting a criminal suspect's Fifth Amendment right to avoid coercive self-incrimination (see right to silence).


The Supreme Court did not specify the exact wording to be used when informing a suspect of his or her rights. However, the Court did create a set of guidelines which must be followed. The ruling states:

“ ...The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he or she has the right to remain silent, and that anything the person says may be used against that person in court; the person must be clearly informed that he or she has the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present during questioning, and that, if he or she is indigent, an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent him or her.



The courts have since ruled that the warning must be "meaningful", so it is usually required that the suspect be asked if he understands his rights. Sometimes, firm answers of "yes" are required. Some departments and jurisdictions require that an officer ask "do you understand?" after every sentence in the warning. An arrestee's silence is not a waiver. Evidence has been ruled inadmissible because of an arrestee's poor knowledge of English and the failure of arresting officers to provide the warning in the arrestee's language.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning

[NowHearThis]

5. Obama administration must be under a lot of pressure

Exactly who is applying it or why the Administration feels its wise to do a Clinton-like act is a question for the gods.

[Strong Atheist]

13. Welcome to DU!

:toast:

[merh]

6. flyarm - you need to stop with this type of stuff, it detracts from what

does matter. This article is faulty and it is written only to slam Obama, not to see that justice is had. It is pathetic that folks think every issue argued by the DOJ in appeals are as simple as their simple reporting.

This case is being heard by SCOTUS because the districts are split on how the handle the issue. It is being heard to bring about uniform application of the law. It is a state court case that is being considered, not a federal court case. From what I can tell, it is the State of Louisiana and not the Department of Justice that is arguing this case.

The Court apparently agreed to hear that issue after being told that the lower courts are split on it. The petition for Jesse Jay Montejo said: “The majority rule in the states that have considered the issue is the sensible one — that a defendant who has been appointed counsel need not take additional steps to secure the protections of the Sixth Amendment.” But the Lousiana Supreme Court, following the lead of the Fifth Circuit Court, held in Montejo’s case that “a defendant who has been appointed counsel cannot invoke the protections of Michigan v. Jackson unless the defendant has previously done something affirmatively to ‘accept’ the appointment.”

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-questions-michigan-v-jackson/

That said, when the DOJ defends these type of cases they are representing the public, the citizens, not Obama. Should criminals be allowed to walk free based on technicalities? That is how some of the US looks at cases like this.

The US Department of Justice has thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of these cases that they see to completion. The right to appeal is not taken lighty, for every conviction in federal criminal court, there can be an appeal and points of law and fact disputed. That is our justice system, our adversary system.

You hire an attorney, the attorney represents you, they may not agree with you, they may not like you but they are not paid to like you or agree with you, they are paid to represent you.

[flyarm]

7. Its the lead story on Talk Left..a very Pro Obama web site , owned &run by an attorney!!

so lets kill the messenger..i got the message...

better go look at the site and see what else is going on ..about medical Marijuana..

fine i won't post here anymore..since it seems censorship is the way of Du anymore!!

I got it real clear!!

over and out!!

[merh]

8. that's not it at all flyarm

This article is flawed and you didn't follow the links and read further, you accepted the flawed reporting.

It is not Obama's DOJ that is even handling the appeal.

It is a good thing that SCOTUS is hearing this, there needs to be uniformity in the circuits, the states need to apply the rule of law fairly to all. That is what this appeal will provide. It is not "does the indigent defendant have the right to an attorney" - it is how does invoking this right protect the defendant.

And yes, the DOJ represents the public, they argue the prosecutions case when a matter is appealed. Everyone has the right to an attorney, even the federal agencies that investigate and prosecute crimes.

No one is asking you to not post, I'm asking you to not post just to slam Obama. That is how this flawed article is written and the slams are not deserved.

There are tons of issues you can post about that call the DOJ's decisions into question, post those - just read Scott Horton or Legal Schnauzer

[Bluenorthwest]

16. What's the difference between

the right to an attorney and getting an amicus brief from the DOJ supporting one side of the case?

[merh]

17. The DOJ is following the orders of the Court

they were a party to the proceedings before they filed the amicus brief as is evident if you look at the court dockets and if you understand the workings of the DOJ SG's office and SCOTUS. The Solicitor General's office represents all citizens, and in abiding by the Court's directive, they filed the amicus brief to try to resolve issues that make it difficult for those investigating and prosecuting cases.

As I said, I don't agree with the DOJ's position but I do understand it. The circuits need to be directed on how to apply Michigan v. Jackson or more importantly, that they should apply Michigan v. Jackson (as it appears the 5th circuit doesn't do.)

[flyarm]

18. You are wrong Merh and that was proven to you at talk left and furthermore

Jeralyn ( an attorney who is currently writing briefs about the illegal wiretapping that our past president did on American citizens) came on to explain to you why you are wrong!

I will be and have been respectful to you always, sorry you have not given me the same respect.

Maybe it is you that needs to go back to "talk left" to see that you were incorrect.

I did read the links,and the amicus brief, so please do not accuse me of what you do not know and think you can see into my mind or what I have or have not read, or what you are prejudiced to believe.

I believe in Miranda, I believe in the right to an attorney. I believe in innocent until proven guilty. I believe in democracy.

I believe we all have that right before being interrogated to an attorney, or when a citizen asks for representation, That they get it and questions cease until an attorney is there to represent the innocent..after all we are all under the law Innocent until proven guilty . We have all just witnessed what a world of ours will look like without those rights , have we not???????

Americans were detained by the Bush cabal..Americans, and held without trial or without representation..you or I could have the same thing done to us, without the rights that make us a democracy.

I don't give a damn who is doing this to us..I will stand against anyone trying to take my rights away and the rights of fellow citizens..without prejudice.

I will speak out about it boldly and loudly.

After all, we could never be treated by our government or police unjustly , could we?? Oh we have..well lets just look the other way then...and ignore more of our rights being taken away. Chip Chip Chip..pretty soon we will be a full blown banana republic! I am beginning to think we are already there!

But please i digress..this story has been reported elsewhere..it is not my story..i did write it or i didn't do anything but report it. And i don't care who is doing it..i will report anything that takes my rights or the rights of my family away!! Or attempts to..

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gsdBeBfQ1PJTCFWgQGQw0vp6U30QD97ONB3G3

Obama legal team wants to limit defendants' rights
By MARK SHERMAN – 1 day ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to overrule a 23 year-old decision that stopped police from initiating questions unless a defendant's lawyer is present, the latest stance that has disappointed civil rights and civil liberties groups.

While President Barack Obama has reversed many policies of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, the defendants' rights case is another stark example of the White House seeking to limit rather than expand rights.

Since taking office, Obama has drawn criticism for backing the continued imprisonment of enemy combatants in Afghanistan without trial, invoking the "state secrets" privilege to avoid releasing information in lawsuits and limiting the rights of prisoners to test genetic evidence used to convict them.

The case at issue is Michigan v. Jackson, in which the Supreme Court said in 1986 that police may not initiate questioning of a defendant who has a lawyer or has asked for one unless the attorney is present. The decision applies even to defendants who agree to talk to the authorities without their lawyers.

Anything police learn through such questioning may not be used against the defendant at trial. The opinion was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the only current justice who was on the court at the time.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

on Yahoo

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090424/ap_on_go_su_co/us_obama_defendants__rights

Obama legal team wants to limit defendants' rights


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Huffington post

http://search.aol.com/aol/search?query=The+Justice+Department+is+asking+the+Supreme+Court+to+overrule+Michigan+v.+Jackson&s_it=keyword_rollover&c.userid=-2021243123489643415

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Arkansas News

http://www.kfsm.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-us-obama-defendants-rights,0,7358945.story

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Kansas City Star

http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics/story/1159510.html

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


here is the goggle search you can find it reported many many places..

http://search.aol.com/aol/search?query=The+Justice+Department+is+asking+the+Supreme+Court+to+overrule+Michigan+v.+Jackson&s_it=keyword_rollover&c.userid=-2021243123489643415

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


so i guess they are all wrong and troublemakers eh????????

I won't ask for an appology..I know you are not malicious and i know you are a kind hearted person Merh..I know that..but for someone who has worked in the field of Law, you should be just as upset as I am about this, and to say we have more important things to worry about basically..I believe you are wrong, Our rights to an Attorney are extremely important..it is people that had those rights taken away that were renditioned, and tortured in our names, or imprisoned in Gitmo without an attorney or without a day in court, they were convicted by our government without ever being innocent before proven guilty..they were not afforded the rights we as a democracy hold dearly..or should.. after all isn't that what we have all been fighting for for the past 8+ years?

My values have not changed since changing administrations , perhaps you need to look deep into yourself and ask yourself..have your values and principles changed?

My values and principles do not waver with the wind..they are mine and i believe strongly in them.
No one is above the law, but the rule of law must apply to all! And when someone or ones is trying to circumvent the laws, we all have the right to know about it..and one thing i am sure we can all agree with..we won't get the info from most of our Tv media..and I applaud people that point out what is going on, that we have to dig to find out..because they care enough to pay attention and bring to others attention to what is going on that we may be unaware of. After all that is all of our responsibility to our constitution..of WE THE People.

.....this too was just brought to my attention..and it too does not make me feel too warm and fuzzy..we have the right to know, so there can be debate and so we can know what will effect all of our lives..or has..
I all too remember these days, as i sat in Venzuela with my hubby working there..and helicopters were flying over my head while sitting at a hotel pool during OPEC meetings with machine guns pointed at me and my family and the families of former Iran Embassy people..that were snuck out of Iran before the compound was taken over and our American citizens were taken hostage. Or when machine gun fire was let loose in my hotel lobby..

I have since on numerous occasions met numerous of those Hostages, through my husbands work..brave people them all!

We have the right to know these things..all of us..we might not like what we are hearing, but we have the right to know it!


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2009/04/24/media-largely-ignore-obama-doj-urging-court-drop-iran-hostage-lawsuit
MSM Ignore Obama DOJ Urging Court to Drop Iran Hostage Lawsuit That Implicates Ahmadinejad
By Ken Shepherd
April 24, 2009 - 11:47 ET


While President Obama was extoling the virtues of wind power in an Earth Day speech, his Justice Department lawyers were attempting to scuttle a lawsuit filed in federal court against Iran by former U.S. embassy hostages. The lawsuit alleges that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was one of the hostage-takers who interrogated the captives.

Two days after the story broke on the Associated Press wire, it appears the mainstream media have virtually buried the story, with no televised coverage save for a brief mention on CNN and one story in the Boston Globe.

A search for "'lawsuit' and 'Iran'" in Nexis from April 22 to 24 found no mentions of the story on MSNBC nor ABC, CBS and NBC broadcast network news programs. Likewise the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, USA Today, and Washington Post were devoid of stories. A search of "major newspapers" in Nexis did yield one hit, a 380-word AP wire story by Nedra Pickler printed on page A6 of the April 23 Boston Globe.

In that April 23 story, Pickler noted that (emphasis mine):

snip and please read the rest!!

But the Justice Department argued that the law does not mention the Algiers Accords, much less explicitly repeal them

<...>


The hostages argue that Iran supported their confinement and abuse, with visits from government officials, stays in government prisons and buildings and threats of trial in Iranian courts. The lawsuit says Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was one of their interrogators.

The lawsuit says the hostages were tortured, beaten sometimes until they lost consciousness and kept in fear of their lives

[merh]

19. I am not wrong, you post as many slanted articles as you want

that doesn't make you right (it makes it apparent how much you DON'T KNOW and how much you have an agenda - slam Obama at all costs).

Focus on the important issues and stop with the anti-Obama rhetoric and someone might start to pay attention to you.

Does the DOJ need to focus on the torture investigation? Yes.

Does the DOJ need to look at itself and get to the bottom of the political proscecutions, you betcha.

Does the torture loophole in the Army Field manual need to be closed? Yes, without a doubt.

Is Obama perfect? No, not by a long shot. Maybe you need to pay heed to Hillary, he is the one that is elected to office and if she didn't think he wanted what was best for the nation, she wouldn't have taken the job as his SOS.

I've posted plenty of stuff against the Obama admin and his policies, I will speak out when he or his department heads do things that are wrong. I don't believe this is the case. Michigan v. Jackson wasn't even argued by the Defendant, it isn't accepted as law in the 5th Circuit. It came up during oral arguments and the Court wants the opinions of both sides as to whether it applies, whether it is relevant and whether it is good law or unnecessary.

I worked in law enforcement, I know how confusing and frustrating it has to be to have a defendant come in to confess only to be told that confession is no good because the defendant had an attorney in some other criminal case. Like I said, the DOJ represents the accused and the accusers, they have an obligation to all citizens, just not the ones you decide today are relevant because of some slanted article.

The Solicitor General's office is involved in 2/3rds of the filings before SCOTUS, they were a party to this case before Obama was sworn in, before he won the election. They enter an appearance in most criminal cases because they have a vested interest in the proceedings. They represent the prosecution and law enforcement, as well as the unaccused and the average citizen. They have a duty to ensure that the guilty are brought to justice and the innocent are acquitted. It is a double duty and for the most part (prior to buscho) they do a decent job of balancing the duties.

And the damnedest thing about the adversary system, both sides are entitled to representation and to have their sides heard. That is how our system of justice works.

I don't agree with the DOJ's position but I understand it and I don't blame the Obama administration for taking the position.

Oh, and just food for thought about the lawyer knowing what she is talking about. Just remember, so did Bybee and Yoo and Haines - being a lawyer doesn't make them right or even reasonable, doesn't mean that they and they alone understand the system or want justice.

[flyarm]

24. It is even on "FINDLAW"....

http://news.findlaw.com/ap/a/w/1154/04-24-2009/20090424013507_20.html

[merh]

27. That doesn't matter - it's just another website

You have distorted the truth and the facts.

This matter was pending long before Obama won, let alone took office.

The DOJ SG is a party to just about every case filed before SCOTUS because they have a vested interest in SCOTUS decisions as they are the attorneys for all of the US, all citizens, defendants and prosecutors, the guilty and the innocent.

Findlaw is just another resource that posts folks LEGAL OPINIONS - just as the legal opinions of Bybee, Yoo and Haines were JUST LEGAL OPINIONS, these articles have no impact but can and are often slanted.

The right wants everyone to questions the "change" that this admin brings, to doubt it, to not like the president and to make his job harder. You are being played by the right as are the idiots who skew the story as they have.

The DOJ's position is not one I agree with but it is not surprising and it doesn't mean that Obama hates poor indigents defendants and folks civil rights.

[flyarm]

32. ...and on CBS ..and many local news ...

but I guess they know nothing..

Findlaw is where John Dean posts his articles..

Hey I posted a a major news story..if you have a problem with the sources and the story..take it up with them!!


Neither I, nor you, are a lawyer..seems the lawyers on Talk Left disagreed with you...I freaking just posted a damn story! A story that should concern most Americans.
You disagree..so go ahead try to bury the story..that is your perogative.

Trying to discredit me , because I posted a story that is EVERYWHERE , doesn't change the fact.
The story is in....Newspapers, TV and Internet, local media ...EVERYWHERE.
And many people are angry about it , as they well should be!


I posted the goggle search for you,apparently you didn't check the sources that ran the story.

I am finished with this..and if this is what one must deal with, for posting a news article and story of what effects all of our lives..well that is disgusting in my book!

I don't have to defend a story I didn't write or that is a major story...that effects all of our lives.


NOT IN MY NAME!!

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/23/ap/politics/main4964737.shtml
Obama Legal Team Wants To Limit Defendants' Rights
Obama Administration Asks Supreme Court To Overturn Ruling Favorable To Criminal Defendants

WASHINGTON, Apr. 23, 2009

(AP) The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to overrule long-standing law that stops police from initiating questions unless a defendant's lawyer is present, another stark example of the White House seeking to limit rather than expand rights.

The administration's action _ and several others _ have disappointed civil rights and civil liberties groups that expected President Barack Obama to reverse the policies of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, after the Democrat's call for change during the 2008 campaign.

Since taking office, Obama has drawn criticism for backing the continued imprisonment of enemy combatants in Afghanistan without trial, invoking the "state secrets" privilege to avoid releasing information in lawsuits and limiting the rights of prisoners to test genetic evidence used to convict them.

The case at issue is Michigan v. Jackson, in which the Supreme Court said in 1986 that police may not initiate questioning of a defendant who has a lawyer or has asked for one, unless the attorney is present. The decision applies even to defendants who agree to talk to the authorities without their lawyers.

Anything police learn through such questioning cannot be used against the defendant at trial. The opinion was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the only current justice who was on the court at the time.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



it was even on my Local News...

http://www.baynews9.com/content/86/2009/4/23/464364.html?title=Obama%20legal%20team%20wants%20defendants'%20rights%20limited

[merh]

33. And I am telling you that the LEFTS article you cited in the OP

and your negative Obama take on the matter is flawed. It is over your head and over the head those who copy the article posted by others. They write the article, like you write your OPs to slam Obama -

OMG, he isn't the changed he promised, OMG same ole same ole. Again, this was a bushco matter and the DOJ has every right to be involved -- it is their duty to be involved. The represent more than just the whiney left that distort the facts to try to make a point.

It is obvious it is SO OVER YOUR HEAD, that you cannot reasonable discuss the matter - you just get more of the slant, written from the original slant.

I actually linked you the Court docket which reflects when the matter was filed (before Obama won the election and before he was sworn in), I gave you the actual brief to read to try to understand, the notice about the oral argument - real stuff and not some twits twisted interpretation of the facts.

Like I said, I don't agree with their argument, but I understand it and do not see it as damning as you want it to be.

[merh]

10. FYI - I posted my comments over there, this is not an attack on you

it is an attack on the false spin Talk Left puts on this matter and that you subsequently posted here.

To dispute you is not trying to censor you. To ask you to stop slamming Obama without first understanding the issues or vetting the article is asking you to be responsible and to not slam for the sake of slamming.

Again, there are more important issues that need to be addressed, this is not on the top of the list because this decision is vital to the rights of the defendant and it is the State of Louisiana that is trying to insure that its conviction of the man was legit, according to their legal precedence.

[uberblonde]

9. Don't be silly!

It's all part of the chess strategy! </sarcasm>

[merh]

11. It is you that is being silly

but ignorance of the case and the system usually results in silly, ignorant comments.

Welcome to DU. :hi:

[FreeJG]

12. Merh!!! I am shocked by you!!!!

Merh, you are not a lawyer. It is the law that is upheld, not opinions that you have on the subject. This is the issue out front, that made our country great. Peoples rights under the law. It is opinions like yours that muddy the waters on issues being delt with in our "media?"

This is such a serious issue, that a real lawyer on Talk Left went after your post, to explain that you are wrong. If your opinion would work best for our system of justice, then the law must be changed.

I just don't see any good in taking the right to counsel away from ANYONE being detained, you, me, or a foreign enemy. This is the freedom we have, that our fathers fought to protect. The right to counsel is what made our country great.

Here is the Talk Left you speak of, where they clearly were also shocked by your post. You are not a lawyer, and you don't seem to understand the gravity of this issue. For a dem prez to take this away, and work with "Alito"? May I ask who is paying you?

jeryln..
the justice department is led (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by Jeralyn on Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 04:06:12 PM EST

by the attorney general who is appointed by the President and sets the policies for the Department. The Solicitor General is appointed by the President. Overruling Michigan v. Jackson wasn't the issue in the cert petition until Alito brought it up at oral argument and the Court then asked for additional briefing to consider the question.

The parties are directed to file supplemental briefs addressing the following question: Should Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625 (1986), be overruled?

The question for which cert had been granted was:


"When an indigent defendant's right to counsel has attached and counsel has been appointed, must the defendant take additional affirmative steps to `accept' the appointment in order to secure the protections of the Sixth Amendment and preclude police-initiated interrogation without counsel present?"
The state of Louisiana, the appellee in the case, didn't ask for the decision to be overruled.


The state of Louisiana, in its written arguments in Montejo, did not urge the Court to reconsider Michigan v. Jackson, but a group of 17 states did in an amicus brief. That brief contended that the "Jackson rule" was not necessary to protect the right of counsel of a suspect in police custody.
DOJ, the prosecution, represents the people of the United States. Their job is to seek justice. Even though DOJ is not a party to this appeal,


The Justice Department, in a brief signed by Solicitor General Elena Kagan, said the 1986 decision "serves no real purpose" and offers only "meager benefits." The government said defendants who don't wish to talk to police don't have to and that officers must respect that decision. But it said there is no reason a defendant who wants to should not be able to respond to officers' questions.

This is a case of the Obama Justice Department advocating to restrict the rights of criminal defendants, as all the news articles noted in their headline.

there, now you have it Merh. The lawyer on Talk Left does not agree with you either. And, Flyarm is NO distraction artist!

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/4/23/221528/555

[merh]

15. Then that "real lawyer" is an ignorant ass

Guess what, the solictor general's office is involved in 2/3rds of the cases filed before the US Supreme Court.

They ARE A PARTY TO THE CASE and were a party to the case before the brief was filed. SCOTUS directed the parties to file supplemental briefs. Tell the "real lawyer" to educate himself/herself on the SCOTUS dockets, that might help him/her.

Page 1
Supreme Court of the United States
October Term, 2008
HEARING LIST

~snip~

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

No. 07–1529. Jesse Jay Montejo v. Louisiana.
Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Louisiana.
For petitioner: Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Washington, D. C.
For respondent: Kathryn W. Landry, Baton Rouge, La.
(1 hour for argument.)
No. 08–88. Vermont v. Michael Brillon.
Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Vermont.
For petitioner: Christina Rainville, Chief Deputy State’s At­
torney, Bennington, Vt.; and Leondra R. Kruger, Assistant
to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washing­
ton, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)
For respondent: William A. Nelson, Middlebury, Vt

~snip~

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:OuLnIyGyr78J:www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/hearinglists/HearingList-January%25202009.pdf+Montejo+doj+solicitor+general&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

The DOJ was part of this case before Obama took office. That is clear and your "real lawyer" makes a fool of himself/herself when he/she argues otherwise, as if the Obama admin decided to just jump in.

Do you know why they are involved in so many cases before SCOTUS? Because they are the attorney for the the US, for all the citizens, they are the body that represents the interests of the citizens and that includes those who work in law enforcement and put their lives on the line daily in this country fighting crime and trying to solve crimes. That includes all prosecutors.

In the DOJ's opinion, Michigan v. Jackson causes confusion which inhibits investigations and prosecutions. I don't agree with their take, but I understand it and their position. They are trying to get direction for the court so that they can get the federal law enforcement folks to properly investigate crimes and so that the prosecutors can properly prosecute.

In Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625 (1986), this
Court established a prophylactic rule that automatically
invalidates a criminal defendant’s waiver of the right to
counsel in police-initiated questioning that occurs after
his Sixth Amendment right to counsel has attached and
he has asserted that right at an arraignment or similar
proceeding. Id. at 636. The question here is whether this
Court should reconsider that holding. The answer is yes

You don't know me, you hardly have posts so where do you come from calling me out as you have. How do you know I am not a "real lawyer"?

And "real lawyers" are not the only people who can understand the law and legal precedence. As is obvious from the "real lawyers" comments, he/she doesn't understand the SCOTUS proceedings and the role of the DOJ SG's office. Hell, Bybee and Yoo are "real lawyers" - look how that works out for justice and a complete understanding of the law.

Go read the DOJ's brief, they explain why they don't believe the Michigan v. Jackson case should be upheld. It is a confusing holding that needs to be better explained. The DOJ believe that other cases provide the protections that Michigan v. Jackson provides.

And please, go look back in this thread and you will see that I have explained to flyarm that I am not attacking her, I just grow weary of her posting blatant attacks on Obama that are flawed. Attack his positions all you like (I do), I don't blame him for all the ills and I know that he cannot micromanage the various agencies. The DOJ's involvement in this case is not new, it was pre-Obama and it is not to "screw the defendant" but to advocate for those they represent. This is a flawed article as I have explained.

[marketcrazy1]

21. this hearing was listed

in January but the brief appears to have been filed in march ( 27th ) Kagan was confirmed only a week or so earlier. it sure looks like they ( the administration ) jumped in as soon as they could.......http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/us-amicus-in-montejo-4-14-09.pdf

[merh]

22. You have your dates screwed up

DOJ SG's office was a party in January, when oral arguments were heard, before Obama was sworn in.

DOJ SG has a vested interest in most of the cases pending before the DOJ, they are the attorney for all of the citizens of the US.

SCOTUS directed all parties (to include the DOJ/SG) to file supplemental briefs at the end of March. The brief was filed April 14, pursuant to that order.

[merh]

28. You are confused about the dates.

or uninformed. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, you are just not informed.

The case was filed in June of '08, the Court agreed to hear it on October 1, 2008. The DOJ was a party in January when the matter was set on the docket. This was before Obama won the election and was sworn in.

Get a grip - the DOJ brief came in April after SCOTUS directed that they file supplemental brief.

[Seen the light]

14. Obama should honestly resign if true

Mind you, I'm not a lawyer and don't always understand the finer points of legalese, but what I just read is beyond the pale. If it turns out that the article is absolutely incorrect and the DOJ isn't doing this, then I obviously retract this so no one need to jump down my throat. But if true, he should no longer serve as POTUS.

Hope this doesn't get me TS'ed.

[mmonk]

20. I'm becoming more alienated from this party day by day.

What is happening?

[merh]

23. Please read my posts in this thread.

[mmonk]

25. I will examine your arguments.

I've just been waiting for something or a sign from this DOJ that appears like it respects justice or precedent.

[merh]

26. You may want to read this article

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-questions-michigan-v-jackson/

and the DOJ brief

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/thompson-et-al-brief-4-14-09.pdf

[mmonk]

29. Thanks.

[flyarm]

30. please read this..very important fact..

Please be sure to read the thread at Talk Left and read the post by Jeralyn Merritt..attorney.
TalkLeft was created by Denver-based criminal defense attorney Jeralyn Merritt
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/4/23/221528/555

Be sure to read this ......
Argument Recap: Montejo v. Louisiana
Wednesday, January 14th, 2009 5:45 pm | Brian Sagona | Print This Post
Stanford student David Muraskin discusses yesterday’s oral argument in Montejo v. Louisiana, (07-1529).

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/argument-recap-montejo-v-louisiana/


Don Verrilli, arguing for the petitioner, attempted to parry the Chief Justice and Justice Scalia’s concerns by explaining that Jackson does not prevent the police from interrogating a defendant if the defendant initiates that contact. Jackson only demands that the police not begin the interrogation on their own accord. Responding to Justice Alito, Mr. Verrilli explained that the briefs did not properly present the implications of overruling Jackson, as this was never requested by respondent, and thus the Court would be acting rashly to do so. Moreover, if the Court were to even amend Jackson, it risked lower courts chipping away at defendants’ right to “rely” upon counsel at each “critical stage.”

snip and pay attention to this...........

At the beginning of the State’s argument Justice Ginsburg immediately questioned the State on this issue, asking whether Mr. Montejo was either provided an opportunity at the 72-hour hearing to indicate that he wanted representation or told that he needed to do so before he was later interrogated. Kathryn Landry, arguing for the State, said that the Miranda warning the police read to Mr. Montejo provided such an opportunity.

Yet, unsatisfied, Justice Stevens picked up on Justice Ginsburg’s point and also emphasized that Louisiana does not record a defendant’s reaction to the appointment of counsel, meaning that there was no readily available means to apply the State’s rule throughout a criminal proceeding. A defendant could indicate his desire for counsel at the 72-hour hearing, but there would be no way to establish this and thus demonstrate that later interrogations violated his or her Sixth Amendment rights, even under the State’s rule.



xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

edit to add:

Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625 (1986), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court regarding the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel in a police interrogation. In a decision written by Justice Stevens, the Court held that once an accused individual has claimed a right to counsel at a plea hearing or other court proceeding, a waiver of that right during later police questioning would be invalid unless the accused individual initiated the communication.

[mmonk]

31. Will do though I'm already disposed to your position on the matter.

[merh]

34. See, this is what you are missing.

It is the State of Louisiana that is arguing that Montejo's conviction should stand because the confession was lawfully obtained despite the fact that Montejo had been appointed an attorney.

The DOJ became involved in the case shortly after it was filed in June of '08, before Obama was nominated, elected and sworn in to office. The DOJ as the United States Attorney, the attorney for all US citizens, including the prosecutors and law enforcement, has a vested interest in the case. There exists an "interpretive conflict between the Louisiana Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit, on the one hand, and the majority of state high courts, on the other" regarding when the defendant's rights attach. (See Brief for Petitioner Jesse Jay Montejo ("Montejo") at 28-29.) The Court's decision could impact police interrogations and the admissibility of statements obtained during those interrogations.

The case was argued before SCOTUS in January of '09 (before Obama took office, before he appointed the current SG) and, as I have shown you on the notice of that setting, the DOJ was a party to the proceedings.

In March, SCOTUS directed (which means they ORDERED/MANDATED) all parties file a brief as to the relevance of Michigan v Jackson.

The DOJ complied with SCOTUS' order and filed their brief on April 14.

I don't agree with their reasoning, I don't think SCOTUS should rule the way they ask, but that doesn't mean that I blame Obama or his SG for filing the brief and I do not believe that they want to screw defendants.

Your posting about that attorney's experience means nothing. Like I have said, Yoo, Bybee and Haines are experienced attorneys. Does that mean their opinions are correct or more valid than mine?

You need to realize that this is all over your head and that you are posting slanted articles that are meant to slam Obama. They are not written for the truth of the matter or in the interest of justice. You are being played by the anti-Obama right and left.