March 10, 2003
GIDEON'S NEXT:
High court to revisit Miranda ruling (AP, 3/10/2003)The Supreme Court is revisiting its landmark 1966 ruling that led to the familiar refrain, "You have the right to remain silent." Justices said Monday they would consider an appeal by a man who claims he was duped into talking to officers.John J. Fellers' case gives the high court a chance to clarify when officers must recite "Miranda rights" to suspects they've come to arrest. [...]
Fellers was barefoot and sipping a mug of what appeared to be tea when he sat on his couch talking to officers who came to his door in Lincoln, Neb. One officer was familiar to Fellers because they both worked as hospital volunteers. Fellers talked freely about getting into drugs after the breakup of his marriage and business problems.
He had been indicted on drug charges before officers went to his house, but they did not specifically tell him they were there to arrest him. Fellers was sentenced to more than 12 years in federal prison after being convicted of conspiring to distribute methamphetamine.
University of Texas law professor Susan Klein said the scene in Fellers' den is played out around the country as officers try to elicit a confession from an off-guard suspect.
If Fellers wins, Klein said, "police officers can no longer intentionally circumvent Miranda by questioning first, getting a statement, then saying 'Oh by the way, now that you've spilled the beans, here's your rights.'"
If Fellers loses, officers will have more freedom to question suspects without bringing up Miranda, she said.
This seems like a textbook example of how Miranda serves only the interests of criminals, doing nothing for the society at large. Hopefully they took the case so they could say so. Posted by Orrin Judd at March 10, 2003 6:56 PM
Orrin, I wish you would explain this to me. What is wrong with the concept of explaining to suspects in criminal cases that they have certain constitutional rights - specifically, the right to not answer questions (5th Amendment, "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself") and the right to legal counsel (6th Amendment, "...and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence")? Or are you arguing that those parts of the Bill of Rights should be repealed? Or are criminal suspects _not_ entitled to those particular Constitutional rights in spite of what seems to me to be the plain text of those clauses? Sorry, but I find what we have, as cumbersome as it can be for the police, infinitely preferable to, let us say, Iraq, where their equivalent of Miranda basically consists of which testicle you'd like the electric wire attached to.
Posted by: Joe at March 10, 2003 7:49 PMJoe--
Two policemen come to your house. They say they would like to speak with you. You know they are policemen. You start telling them about your life in drugs. Are you really shocked when you're arrested?
Joe:
I don't particularly mind that criminals have those specifically enumerated rights, but what is the use of tossing convictions when they aren't reminded that they had them before they started talking. Mind you they still have the right not to testify and to hire a lawyer at trial. They didn't "lose" any rights. They simply exercised those they had poorly.