supreme court could end miranda warnings

Samsa · 12-02-2002, 04:45 PM

Supreme Court - AP

Supreme Court Could End Miranda Warnings
Mon Dec 2, 8:06 AM ET

By LINDA DEUTSCH, AP Special Correspondent

LOS ANGELES (AP) - For five years, Oliverio Martinez has been blind and paralyzed as the result of a police shooting. Now he is at the center of a U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) case that could determine whether decades of restraints on police interrogations should be discarded.

The blanket requirement for a Miranda warning to all suspects that they have the right to remain silent could end up in the rubbish bin of legal history if the court concludes police were justified in aggressively questioning the gravely wounded Martinez while he screamed in agony.

"I am dying! ... What are you doing to me?" Martinez is heard screaming on a recording of the persistent interrogation by police Sgt. Ben Chavez in Oxnard, a city of 182,000 about 60 miles northwest of Los Angeles.

"If you are going to die, tell me what happened," the officer said. He continued the questioning in an ambulance and an emergency room while Martinez pleaded for treatment. At times, he left the room to allow medical personnel to work, but he returned and continued pressing for answers.

No Miranda warning was given.

A ruling that minimizes defendants' rights would be useful to the Bush administration, which supports Oxnard's appeal, in its questioning of terrorism suspects, experts said.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites) agreed with a federal judge that the confession was coerced and cannot be used as evidence against Martinez in his excessive-force civil case against the city. It said Chavez should have known that questioning a man who had been shot five times, was crying out for treatment and had been given no Miranda warning was a violation of his constitutional rights.

Oxnard appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is scheduled to hear arguments in the case Wednesday.

The U.S. Justice Department (news - web sites) filed a friend-of-the-court brief along with police organizations and the conservative Criminal Justice Legal Foundation contending that unfettered police questioning is allowable so long as the information obtained from a suspect is not used against that person in court.

Opponents of the government position say a ruling diluting the Miranda protections would be another nail in the coffin of individual rights sacrificed in the interest of rooting out terrorists.

"This is a case to be concerned about," said Charles Weisselberg, a University of California, Berkeley, law professor. "To see the (U.S.) solicitor general arguing that there's no right to be free from coercive interrogation is pretty aggressive."

On Nov. 28, 1997, Martinez, a farm worker, was riding his bicycle through a field where police were questioning a man suspected of selling drugs. The police ordered Martinez to stop. When an officer found a sheathed knife in his waistband, they scuffled and the officer's partner, perceiving that Martinez was reaching for the officer's gun, shot him five times, in the eyes, spine and legs.

Chavez eventually got an acknowledgment from Martinez that he did grab for the officer's gun. But Martinez's lawyers said that statement was coerced and is inadmissible in the damage case that Martinez filed.

Martinez was never charged with a crime.

The Oxnard appeal argues that the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination applies only at a criminal trial and the 14th Amendment guarantee of due process of law is violated only if the questioning of a suspect is so excessive that it "shocks the conscience" of the community.

Martinez is represented by R. Samuel Paz, a frequent critic of police practices.

"I think it will turn on whether the court is going to stand up and say what it said before," Paz said, "that the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments protect people, and that we do have rights that extend beyond having a coerced confession admitted into a criminal case."

Martinez, 34, blind and paraplegic, lives in a one-room trailer in a remote rural area, tended by his father.

"It's tragic," said Alan E. Wisotsky, the lawyer for the city of Oxnard, "but you can't look at it from a philanthropic standpoint. He tried to kill police officers or they thought he was trying to kill them .... Does the tape (of the interrogation) sound bad? Yes, the guy is in agony. But the questioning was to get at the truth."

The Miranda warning takes its name from the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in a 1966 case involving the use of a confession in the rape prosecution of Ernesto Miranda.

"A generation of Americans has grown up since 1966 confident that, if brought to the police station for questioning, we have the right to remain silent, that the police will warn us of that right and, above all, that they will respect its exercise," said a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of Martinez by the American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) and California Attorneys for Criminal Justice.

"... If petitioners' theory of the Fifth Amendment is correct, then the public's confidence has been misplaced for all these decades and is about to be shattered," it said.

Samsa · 12-02-2002, 04:46 PM

:erm

i think that the court will most likely side with the previous judgment. which really makes me wonder. i mean this sort of seems like a cut and dry case? like why did the supreme court even agree to hear it in the first place?

Samsa · 12-02-2002, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Samsa

The U.S. Justice Department (news - web sites) filed a friend-of-the-court brief along with police organizations and the conservative Criminal Justice Legal Foundation contending that unfettered police questioning is allowable so long as the information obtained from a suspect is not used against that person in court.

oh i see

hm this media article seems pretty biased

this seems to be the ony mention in the whole thing of exactly what the police were questioning him about right?

DeviousJ · 12-02-2002, 04:49 PM

What's with the "

"?

Samsa · 12-02-2002, 04:50 PM

NEVERMIND

I SHOULD PROBABLY READ THE END OF THE ARTICLE GIVING ********** BEFORE I DISCUSS THE ARTICLE ANY MORE

ONE SEC

Random Female · 12-02-2002, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Samsa
:erm

i think that the court will most likely side with the previous judgment. which really makes me wonder. i mean this sort of seems like a cut and dry case? like why did the supreme court even agree to hear it in the first place?

they want to hear it because the conservative fucks want to overturn it. They wouldn't hear hte case if 4 justices didn't want to, and that's because those four and more plan to vote against it. miranda warnings are going to be a thing of the past.

Random Female · 12-02-2002, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Samsa
filed a friend-of-the-court brief

amicus curiae!!!!

Samsa · 12-02-2002, 04:53 PM

oh hmm

so how can it be a 'confession' if they're not charging him with a crime? i don't fucking get it. or are they charging him? like why were they questioning him so harshly in the first place if they weren't going to charge him with anything? or were they?

i don't like this newspaper article

Samsa · 12-02-2002, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Random Female
they want to hear it because the conservative fucks want to overturn it. They wouldn't hear hte case if 4 justices didn't want to, and that's because those four and more plan to vote against it. miranda warnings are going to be a thing of the past.

see, no. i still have faith in the rehnquist court. i am going to continue to believe they're good people :-/

Random Female · 12-02-2002, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Samsa

see, no. i still have faith in the rehnquist court. i am going to continue to believe they're good people :-/

i wish i did, too

:erm

Samsa · 12-02-2002, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by killtheyouth
heh. thomas and scalia good people. that's funny.

:[

Samsa · 12-02-2002, 04:59 PM

well, you know. legally conscientious people. :erm

DeviousJ · 12-02-2002, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Samsa
oh hmm

so how can it be a 'confession' if they're not charging him with a crime? i don't fucking get it. or are they charging him? like why were they questioning him so harshly in the first place if they weren't going to charge him with anything? or were they?

i don't like this newspaper article

On Nov. 28, 1997, Martinez, a farm worker, was riding his bicycle through a field where police were questioning a man suspected of selling drugs. The police ordered Martinez to stop. When an officer found a sheathed knife in his waistband, they scuffled and the officer's partner, perceiving that Martinez was reaching for the officer's gun, shot him five times, in the eyes, spine and legs.

Chavez eventually got an acknowledgment from Martinez that he did grab for the officer's gun. But Martinez's lawyers said that statement was coerced and is inadmissible in the damage case that Martinez filed.

Martinez was never charged with a crime.

Basically the guy is a blind paraplegic because the police shot him in the eyes and spine (excessive force much?) and he filed a case against them, and they're claiming that he confessed to going for the officer's gun and they were merely responding to that threat. His lawyers say the 'confession' was forced, and so cannot be used as evidence.

Funny how the cops decided that after shooting him they should immediately get a taped interview asking 'what happened?'

Random Female · 12-02-2002, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Samsa
well, you know. legally conscientious people. :erm

dude, scalia's such a hard-core catholic that he would vote against the legalization of birth control if Griswold was argued today. You should really read his logic on the anti-abortion cases. it's stunning.

spa ced · 12-02-2002, 05:15 PM

Interesting fact #8398330343

Did you know that when Mr. Miranda (the guy that got the law to ******* the reading of rights to suspects) got murdered, they read his murderer his Miranda rights?

That's pretty interesting me thinks.

Samsa · 12-02-2002, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Random Female
dude, scalia's such a hard-core catholic that he would vote against the legalization of birth control if Griswold was argued today. You should really read his logic on the anti-abortion cases. it's stunning.

Samsa · 12-02-2002, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DeviousJ

On Nov. 28, 1997, Martinez, a farm worker, was riding his bicycle through a field where police were questioning a man suspected of selling drugs. The police ordered Martinez to stop. When an officer found a sheathed knife in his waistband, they scuffled and the officer's partner, perceiving that Martinez was reaching for the officer's gun, shot him five times, in the eyes, spine and legs.

Chavez eventually got an acknowledgment from Martinez that he did grab for the officer's gun. But Martinez's lawyers said that statement was coerced and is inadmissible in the damage case that Martinez filed.

Martinez was never charged with a crime.

Basically the guy is a blind paraplegic because the police shot him in the eyes and spine (excessive force much?) and he filed a case against them, and they're claiming that he confessed to going for the officer's gun and they were merely responding to that threat. His lawyers say the 'confession' was forced, and so cannot be used as evidence.

Funny how the cops decided that after shooting him they should immediately get a taped interview asking 'what happened?'

....oh

how strange

spa ced · 12-02-2002, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Samsa

Did you not think my contribution was interesting?

Samsa · 12-02-2002, 05:21 PM

oh. ehm. sorry.

how interesting

spa ced · 12-02-2002, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Samsa
oh. ehm. sorry.

how interesting

It is!
You must see the irony in the situation.
The guy that got the law changed to protect accused criminals helped his own murderer by letting him keep quiet.

DeviousJ · 12-02-2002, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Samsa

....oh

how strange

It's not that strange. They got into a scuffle, some cop shot the guy IN THE EYES and IN THE SPINE, realized they were in serious trouble, and started interrogating the guy while he was lying there blinded and bleeding everywhere, with a tape recorder ready to capture his carefully thought-through admission. He probably thought they'd only get him to hospital if he answered their questions. So it's pretty understandable, unless you're asking why they shot him up in the first place, in which case I have no idea

DeviousJ · 12-02-2002, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sp_aced

It is!
You must see the irony in the situation.
The guy that got the law changed to protect accused criminals helped his own murderer by letting him keep quiet.

It would have been more ironic if they *hadn't* read this guy his Miranda rights. Or if he'd had ten thousand spoons

spa ced · 12-02-2002, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DeviousJ

It would have been more ironic if they *hadn't* read this guy his Miranda rights. Or if he'd had ten thousand spoons

Alanis jokes are so 1999.
Get with the times.

Samsa · 12-02-2002, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DeviousJ

It's not that strange.

oh yes it is

Samsa · 12-02-2002, 05:59 PM

the story isn't the strange part (although it's still pretty strange how they just stop this guy on his bike and suddenly he's all shot or something)

the really strange part is the whole lawsuit and the confession and how it's not really evidence against him although it sort of is, it's just strange

DeviousJ · 12-02-2002, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sp_aced

Alanis jokes are so 1999.
Get with the times.

Hey look bub, I got a free ride today, AFTER I'd already paid. Alanis speaks to me.

DeviousJ · 12-02-2002, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Samsa
the story isn't the strange part (although it's still pretty strange how they just stop this guy on his bike and suddenly he's all shot or something)

the really strange part is the whole lawsuit and the confession and how it's not really evidence against him although it sort of is, it's just strange

Wait a second, you don't find the guy getting shot strange, but you *do* think the guy bringing a case against the police for what they did, and the police trying to get out of it is strange?

Samsa · 12-02-2002, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DeviousJ

Wait a second, you don't find the guy getting shot strange, but you *do* think the guy bringing a case against the police for what they did, and the police trying to get out of it is strange?

well i mean if you're in a tussle and you grab for his gun of course you're gonna get shot. it's kinda strange they shot him in his eyes

i think you are interpreting the word "strange" wrong. when i say "strange" i don't mean "suspicious" i just mean odd, unusual, weird to think about. it's a strange legal case. it's strange.

ugh. fuck you for making thinks complicated. i see the way you're. nevermind.

12-02-2002, 04:45 PM	#1
Samsa Banned Location: A theater near you Posts: 7,929	supreme court could end miranda warnings Supreme Court - AP Supreme Court Could End Miranda Warnings Mon Dec 2, 8:06 AM ET By LINDA DEUTSCH, AP Special Correspondent LOS ANGELES (AP) - For five years, Oliverio Martinez has been blind and paralyzed as the result of a police shooting. Now he is at the center of a U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) case that could determine whether decades of restraints on police interrogations should be discarded. The blanket requirement for a Miranda warning to all suspects that they have the right to remain silent could end up in the rubbish bin of legal history if the court concludes police were justified in aggressively questioning the gravely wounded Martinez while he screamed in agony. "I am dying! ... What are you doing to me?" Martinez is heard screaming on a recording of the persistent interrogation by police Sgt. Ben Chavez in Oxnard, a city of 182,000 about 60 miles northwest of Los Angeles. "If you are going to die, tell me what happened," the officer said. He continued the questioning in an ambulance and an emergency room while Martinez pleaded for treatment. At times, he left the room to allow medical personnel to work, but he returned and continued pressing for answers. No Miranda warning was given. A ruling that minimizes defendants' rights would be useful to the Bush administration, which supports Oxnard's appeal, in its questioning of terrorism suspects, experts said. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites) agreed with a federal judge that the confession was coerced and cannot be used as evidence against Martinez in his excessive-force civil case against the city. It said Chavez should have known that questioning a man who had been shot five times, was crying out for treatment and had been given no Miranda warning was a violation of his constitutional rights. Oxnard appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is scheduled to hear arguments in the case Wednesday. The U.S. Justice Department (news - web sites) filed a friend-of-the-court brief along with police organizations and the conservative Criminal Justice Legal Foundation contending that unfettered police questioning is allowable so long as the information obtained from a suspect is not used against that person in court. Opponents of the government position say a ruling diluting the Miranda protections would be another nail in the coffin of individual rights sacrificed in the interest of rooting out terrorists. "This is a case to be concerned about," said Charles Weisselberg, a University of California, Berkeley, law professor. "To see the (U.S.) solicitor general arguing that there's no right to be free from coercive interrogation is pretty aggressive." On Nov. 28, 1997, Martinez, a farm worker, was riding his bicycle through a field where police were questioning a man suspected of selling drugs. The police ordered Martinez to stop. When an officer found a sheathed knife in his waistband, they scuffled and the officer's partner, perceiving that Martinez was reaching for the officer's gun, shot him five times, in the eyes, spine and legs. Chavez eventually got an acknowledgment from Martinez that he did grab for the officer's gun. But Martinez's lawyers said that statement was coerced and is inadmissible in the damage case that Martinez filed. Martinez was never charged with a crime. The Oxnard appeal argues that the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination applies only at a criminal trial and the 14th Amendment guarantee of due process of law is violated only if the questioning of a suspect is so excessive that it "shocks the conscience" of the community. Martinez is represented by R. Samuel Paz, a frequent critic of police practices. "I think it will turn on whether the court is going to stand up and say what it said before," Paz said, "that the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments protect people, and that we do have rights that extend beyond having a coerced confession admitted into a criminal case." Martinez, 34, blind and paraplegic, lives in a one-room trailer in a remote rural area, tended by his father. "It's tragic," said Alan E. Wisotsky, the lawyer for the city of Oxnard, "but you can't look at it from a philanthropic standpoint. He tried to kill police officers or they thought he was trying to kill them .... Does the tape (of the interrogation) sound bad? Yes, the guy is in agony. But the questioning was to get at the truth." The Miranda warning takes its name from the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in a 1966 case involving the use of a confession in the rape prosecution of Ernesto Miranda. "A generation of Americans has grown up since 1966 confident that, if brought to the police station for questioning, we have the right to remain silent, that the police will warn us of that right and, above all, that they will respect its exercise," said a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of Martinez by the American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) and California Attorneys for Criminal Justice. "... If petitioners' theory of the Fifth Amendment is correct, then the public's confidence has been misplaced for all these decades and is about to be shattered," it said.

12-02-2002, 04:49 PM	#4
DeviousJ CORNFROST Location: GUREITO DESU YO Posts: 24,891	What's with the ""?

12-02-2002, 04:46 PM	#2
Samsa Banned Location: A theater near you Posts: 7,929	:erm i think that the court will most likely side with the previous judgment. which really makes me wonder. i mean this sort of seems like a cut and dry case? like why did the supreme court even agree to hear it in the first place?

12-02-2002, 04:50 PM	#5
Samsa Banned Location: A theater near you Posts: 7,929	NEVERMIND I SHOULD PROBABLY READ THE END OF THE ARTICLE GIVING ********** BEFORE I DISCUSS THE ARTICLE ANY MORE ONE SEC

12-02-2002, 04:53 PM	#8
Samsa Banned Location: A theater near you Posts: 7,929	oh hmm so how can it be a 'confession' if they're not charging him with a crime? i don't fucking get it. or are they charging him? like why were they questioning him so harshly in the first place if they weren't going to charge him with anything? or were they? i don't like this newspaper article

12-02-2002, 04:59 PM	#12
Samsa Banned Location: A theater near you Posts: 7,929	well, you know. legally conscientious people. :erm

12-02-2002, 05:15 PM	#15
spa ced Braindead Location: Machu Picchu Posts: 15,291	Interesting fact #8398330343 Did you know that when Mr. Miranda (the guy that got the law to ******* the reading of rights to suspects) got murdered, they read his murderer his Miranda rights? That's pretty interesting me thinks.

12-02-2002, 05:21 PM	#19
Samsa Banned Location: A theater near you Posts: 7,929	oh. ehm. sorry. how interesting

12-02-2002, 05:59 PM	#25
Samsa Banned Location: A theater near you Posts: 7,929	the story isn't the strange part (although it's still pretty strange how they just stop this guy on his bike and suddenly he's all shot or something) the really strange part is the whole lawsuit and the confession and how it's not really evidence against him although it sort of is, it's just strange