Officials: Suspect described plot before Miranda

[Omaha Steve]

Source: AP-Excite

By RODRIQUE NGOWI, LARA JAKES and MATT APUZZO

BOSTON (AP) - The surviving suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings acknowledged to the FBI his role in the attacks but did so before he was advised of his constitutional rights to keep quiet and seek a lawyer, officials said Wednesday.

It is unclear whether those statements before the Miranda rights warning would be admissible in a criminal trial and, if not, whether prosecutors even need them to win a conviction. Officials said physical evidence, including a 9 mm handgun and pieces of a remote-control device commonly used in toys, was recovered from the scene.

The suspect, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19, told authorities that his older brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26, only recently recruited him to be part of the attack, two U.S. officials said. The CIA, however, named Tamerlan to a terrorist database 18 months ago, officials said Wednesday, an acknowledgment that will undoubtedly prompt congressional inquiry about whether investigators took warnings from Russian intelligence officials seriously enough.

The U.S. officials who spoke to The Associated Press were close to the investigation but insisted on anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the case with reporters.

FULL story at link.


Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20130425/DA5S9J701.html

---

A Revere, Mass. police captain holds his cap while entering a memorial service for fallen Massachusetts Institute of Technology police officer Sean Collier, in Cambridge, Mass., Wednesday, April 24, 2013. Collier was fatally shot on the MIT campus Thursday, April 18, 2013. Authorities allege that the Boston Marathon bombing suspects were responsible. (AP Photo/Steven Senne)

[FailureToCommunicate]

1. "Officials who spoke to The AP were close to the investigation but insisted on anonymity"

I'll bet they did.

[Historic NY]

2. Must have been on note papers.....

thats how it was first reported he was communicating....

Annony mous sources.

[Gore1FL]

3. I would have to think

they probably have more than enough evidence to convict without a confession really being necessary to the case.

[msanthrope]

18. Here's the DOJ criminal complaint...

http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/363201342213441988148.pdf

[Historic NY]

36. A lot of evidence and some eye witness identifications......

he isn't basing anything on his testimony or confession.. the government will parade witness's in court. Video & photographic evidence.

[BainsBane]

4. This is how to fuck up a prosecution

So incredibly stupid. Justice gave the order not to mirandize him.

[msanthrope]

6. Nonsense. What evidence do you think will be excluded on the basis of no Miranda? nt

[BainsBane]

8. Nothing he said before Miranda is admissible in court

The purpose of the exception is public safety. In this case that would have meant additional bombs or conspirators, but nothing he said during that time an be used at trial. So if he did indeed make the confession the article indicates, it can't be used against him at trial.

[LisaL]

10. I am pretty sure they got more than enough evidence without a confession.

Confession is not necessary. A lot of people never confess at all and still get convicted.

[BainsBane]

12. You're probably right

I still gave trouble understanding their decision.

[LanternWaste]

44. I'm only guessing, but I would think that the FBI...

I'm only guessing, but I would think that the FBI had the forethought (if not an already standardized policy) to separate their questions into two categories: one set predicated on imminent danger to the community asked prior to mirandizing him, and another wholly separate set asked after mirandizing him designed to be used used in court.

The first set (prior to mirandizing) would be designed to make sure that any clear and present danger to the community would be minimized (any bombs still out there? any booby-traps set? any accomplices? where did you train/get your intel?, etc.). Regardless of his answers, there may not be a requirement for these same questions to come up in court if the feds believe they have enough additional evidence to still convict him once trial begins.

Again, this is just guesswork on my part...

[msanthrope]

13. So? What evidence--that you now think is excluded---is essential to convict him--i.e.

what evidence, stemming from his statements, is neccessary for his conviction?

[BainsBane]

14. Like I have his file here?

No one but the US attorney's office knows exactly what evidence they have. What an absurd question. My comment is about the confession mentioned in the article.

[msanthrope]

17. Um, dude--the criminal complaint's been online for a few days already.....

http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/363201342213441988148.pdf

It's pretty specific about what evidence they have.

You might find it an interesting read.

[BainsBane]

27. Thanks. Nt

[PSPS]

22. But he can make the same admission after being mirandized.

Very few people insist on a lawyer or clam up after being mirandized.

[BainsBane]

24. Hopefully he did make the statement again. Nt

[eggplant]

30. Bullshit. Miranda only covers the time after arrest.

His confession to the guy he carjacked are completely admissible, for example.

[BainsBane]

31. Obviously

[cleduc]

38. I don't agree with that firm conclusion

It might turn out that way. We don't have the details on when the public exception expired during their discussions. But if he confessed early on before they had dealt with the public safety concerns, I think he has a real criminal legal problem trying to get that testimony/confession ignored.

Beyond that, from what I've seen in the media, they have a mountain of hard evidence against him.

For example:
- they have recovered a baseball cap and jacket that match what he is accused of wearing in the marathon bombing videos/photos
- they found similar fuses to those used in the marathon bombs in his room
- they found a remote control capable of detonating the marathon bombs in their vehicle in Watertown
- they used a similar pressure cooker bomb against the Watertown police along with pipe bombs that had to be prepared long before the FBI flashed their images on national TV
- in both the MIT police shooting and the original engagement with Watertown police, they assaulted the police (the MIT assault/cop assassination is on video) - the police did not start the assualt against them
- they've recovered some if not all of their guns and therefore, have the ballistics
- they have motive with his brother's religious associations, his mentors, going to Russia, etc
- they have many videos/photos of them executing the bombing and their engagement with police
- they have the brother buying stuff at a fireworks store
- they have the carjacking victim testimony that they confessed to the bombing to him to intimidate him
etc, etc

They have motive, means and opportunity without the Miranda safety exception confession.

So the Miranda debate seems kind of moot to me.

Either this guy offers something of value and chirps or he's facing an execution. Even then, he'd have to offer something of exceptional value to discourage them from not seeking the death penalty.

[BainsBane]

39. I guess we'd need a lawyer or judge to say for sure

but my understanding was those statements were inadmissible. I have no doubt that have a great deal of other evidence.

[cleduc]

41. And the actual transcript of the exhange

But the FBI has published a pretty good document that summarizes the issue:
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/february2011/legal_digest

and in there, you will see for example:

The Supreme Court chose to address whether a public safety exception to Miranda should exist. In this regard, the Court held that: "there is a 'public safety' exception to the requirement that Miranda warnings be given before a suspect's answers may be admitted into evidence, and the exception does not depend upon the motivation of the individual officers involved.
....
CONCLUSION

The "public safety" exception to Miranda is a powerful tool with a modern application for law enforcement. When police officers are confronted by a concern for public safety, Miranda warnings need not be provided prior to asking questions directed at neutralizing an imminent threat, and voluntary statements made in response to such narrowly tailored questions can be admitted at trial. Once the questions turn from those designed to resolve the concern for safety to questions designed solely to elicit incriminating statements, the questioning falls outside the scope of the exception and within the traditional rules of Miranda.

So under the public safety exception, if he confessed - directly or indirectly, there's a very reasonable possibility that confession is legally admissible as long as that confession occurred while trying "to resolve the concern for safety".

[BainsBane]

42. I see

Thanks for providing that text. That's very helpful.

[midnight]

5. I wonder how this will stand up in court?

[msanthrope]

7. What evidence do you think will be excluded? Otherwise, it really

doesn't matter.

[midnight]

45. I'm not sure we can say for sure what the "evidence" is...

We have been told before about "evidence" being the reason to submit us to a decades long war....

"On April 23, 2006, CBS’s “60 Minutes” interviewed Tyler Drumheller, the former CIA chief of clandestine operations for Europe, who disclosed that the agency had received documentary intelligence from Naji Sabri, Saddam’s foreign minister, that Saddam did not have WMD. “We continued to validate him the whole way through,” said Drumheller. “The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy.”

Now two former senior CIA officers have confirmed Drumheller’s account to me and provided the background to the story of how the information that might have stopped the invasion of Iraq was twisted in order to justify it. They described what Tenet said to Bush about the lack of WMD, and how Bush responded, and noted that Tenet never shared Sabri’s intelligence with then Secretary of State Colin Powell. According to the former officers, the intelligence was also never shared with the senior military planning the invasion, which required U.S. soldiers to receive medical shots against the ill effects of WMD and to wear protective uniforms in the desert.

Instead, said the former officials, the information was distorted in a report written to fit the preconception that Saddam did have WMD programs. That false and restructured report was passed to Richard Dearlove, chief of the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), who briefed Prime Minister Tony Blair on it as validation of the cause for war.

Secretary of State Powell, in preparation for his presentation of evidence of Saddam’s WMD to the United Nations Security Council on Feb. 5, 2003, spent days at CIA headquarters in Langley, Va., and had Tenet sit directly behind him as a sign of credibility. But Tenet, according to the sources, never told Powell about existing intelligence that there were no WMD, and Powell’s speech was later revealed to be a series of falsehoods."

http://www.salon.com/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/

[msanthrope]

48. of course we can say with the evidence is. the sworn criminal complaint is

available right on this thread.

what evidence listed therein are you disputing?

[midnight]

51. So sure you are, but I'm not...

[msanthrope]

53. Right. I suppose the videos are faked? nt

[midnight]

54. Why do you say this? If you have a link that you think might be helpful, but

is being questioned as fake-post...

[davidpdx]

9. The statements may not hold up, but they can question him with a lawyer present

and can provide other pieces of evidence (i.e. eyewitness accounts, pictures, fingerprints, blood, DNA) to gain leverage. Those who are acting as if this case is over just because he made statements before his Miranda rights were read are seriously underestimating the evidence against him.

[ancianita]

21. The timing of Miranda isn't crucial here, really.

I've read elsewhere a backhanded argument that the public safety decision itself supports Miranda: that law enforcement is even going to the trouble of invoking the exception can be read as a sign that Miranda is being taken seriously, because given the amount of evidence out there they could do already anything short of waterboarding him with no consequences during a trial.

It is also worth pointing out that Tsarnaev could still end the interrogation himself at any point with the magic words "I want a lawyer", as that invokes the second part of Miranda regardless of whether he's read his rights or not. As a recently naturalized citizen, he's likely come across that information, I'd wager.

[davidpdx]

32. Yes, that is very true

I don't think the fact that his Miranda rights were not read will be a big factor either. The prosecutors are going to pile so many charges on him and probably seek the death penalty. That along with the evidence will probably force him to take a plea bargain with some of the charges being dropped. Right now he has four 1st degree murder charges, and over a 100 attempted murder charges.

[delrem]

11. I figure this guy will cooperate fully.

The US is wrong to play games with civil liberties.
These guys aren't "bin Laden" or huge existential threats to the USA.
Not close.
I figure it's proven that the US was wrong in the first place to work outside the law in dealing with 21st century terrorism. The US created a fucking mess by doing so.

It's time for the US to review all the anti-civil-libertarian laws it introduced under GWB and continued under BHO. It simply isn't necessary to change the world so radically in the direction of repression and the denial of those human rights so long fought for. Those who fought for human rights *said* this would happen, that what was so hard gained would be fought against with relentless force and has to be just as strongly defended.

Everyone who has some acquaintance with war knows that every war begins with a pretext. The pretext might be true or false, but it is never proportionate to the response or to the response to that response.

Same with the decade long war against the human rights that several centuries of our ancestors fought for. It may be called a "war on terror", but in fact it is a war on those human rights.

[Fearless]

15. +1

[ancianita]

23. When you say 'the law' here, I'm not sure that you're aware of how the law's working here.

Seriously, this case is not a test of whether we're falling into pre-Enlightenment barbarism.

If the feds attempt to use this new exception - which has never been tested in civil court - then there's a risk of his statements being thrown out. However, this isn't a bad test case for the public safety exception, anyway, because the evidence is fairly overwhelming even if he never says anything; so, the government can test this exception without risking actually jeopardizing the prosecution.

[davidpdx]

55. True, people are acting as though he was shipped to Guantanamo and tourtured

He was in a hospital bed receiving treatment which was being provided to keep him alive.

As you said, this is a good case test for the exception because whether or not those statements get thrown out he's going to either a) rot in prison for the rest of his life; or b) get the death penalty. Personally I hope he cuts a deal and gets life and avoids the trial all together.

If they get thrown out, then it will signal that changes have to be made. Anything that strengthens the exception for the next time is a good thing in my book..

[Live and Learn]

35. +2 nt

[jonthebru]

16. Look, there is a picture of him with the backpack and

a picture of him as he walks away smugly turning the corner after the bomb exploded without the back pack.

No matter what he says or doesn't say he is either dead or locked up for the rest of his life.

[Matilda]

19. Are these the same anonymous officials who have admitted that Dzhokhar was unarmed when arrested?

WASHINGTON (AP) — Two U.S. officials say the surviving suspect in the Boston bombings was unarmed when police captured him hiding inside a boat in a neighborhood back yard.

(snip)

The officials tell The Associated Press that no gun was found in the boat. Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis said earlier that shots were fired from inside the boat.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2013/04/24/officials-suspect-unarmed-when-arrested-boat/15RdBrwnAoMLdWlVun5GXI/story.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter


I definitely recall hearing on television that shots had been fired from the boat. If this isn't the case, are authorities trying to manufacture evidence because their case against Dzhokhar isn't strong enough? It's very troubling, and I hope Dzhokhar has a good lawyer. A miscarriage of justice isn't good, no matter what public feeling might dictate.

[Brimley]

20. You've abandoned Miranda?

That is not a good thing!

[ancianita]

29. Calm down. There's blood lust politics going on in DC but courts still adhere to law.

There's no slippery slope here; as soon as either brother was throwing explosives out his car window at cops with dashboard cams, the Fifth Amendment goes out the window. To try to pick a fight with the public safety exception, you have to have a case where the suspect is a suspect and not a guilty Life Without Parole plea waiting to happen.

You gotta take into account that the kid's had a tube down his throat, so when he talks, he'll get Mirandized.

[Ash_F]

25. It's not going to matter to his conviction.

He was is going to get convicted whether he said anything or not. It may affect the sentencing.

[Lil Missy]

26. It doesn't and won't matter. n/t

[moosewhisperer]

28. good move

Getting info out of Dzhokhar before Miranda Rights were read was a smart, calculated move. Investigators needed to ascertain if the pair had acted alone or if they were dealing with a much larger threat to national security. Had the rights been read prior and insisted on a lawyer, it may have been incredibly difficult to get that info.

In essence, he was briefly treated as an enemy combatant. If there were other plots attached, wouldn't you want that information as soon as freakin' possible?

And, as other posters have stated, there's an overwhelming amount of evidence against him. The whole country are eyewitnesses. A confession being admissible in court is zero concern.

[ancianita]

33. Treated as a potential enemy combatant. Big diff. It was the public safety exception that suspended

his constitutional rights. Anyway, it's the abuse of that 'exception' that people are worried about. We're just speculating here, really, about how much and whether that happened, unless there are some official reports about what they got out of him. Which I doubt.

[ancianita]

34. I spoke too soon. Investigators are getting a lot out of him, according to the Washington Post.

[moosewhisperer]

43. Like I said

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/miranda-warning-then-silence-bombing-suspect

[ancianita]

47. Yep.

Tsarnaev's rights will only have been violated if the statements made prior to Miranda are used in trial. Being questioned without Miranda itself has never, ever, been a violation of a person's rights. The magistrate walked in to show law enforcement just how long the 'immediacy' time period should be with this untested 'public safety exception.'

[PADemD]

37. No Fly List

If the CIA added Tamerlan Tsarnaev to a terrorist database 18 months ago, why wasn't he on the no-fly list?

[Aristus]

46. If they interrogated him for the information before Miranda, it could be problematic.

However, if he volunteered the information on his own, it should be admissible.

You don't have to Mirandize the suspect when taking him into custody; only prior to interrogation.

[ancianita]

49. It's a common misconception, but police don't have to Mirandize any suspect ever.

Also, police often don't care about admissibility. They just want information.

Miranda was never about whether the police must inform suspects of their rights, only about whether those statements can be used at trial. Miranda was retried and found guilty again, only without his statements being used. His rights were not considered violated by the questioning itself, only by their use in court.

And this is all regardless of Tsarnaev. The 'precedent' is clear, the police can question people without reading them their rights, same as always. They can't use that questioning to build a case in court against the suspect, that is all. Again, Miranda himself was sent to jail after being retried without his statements being used.

[Aristus]

50. I'm not a legal expert.

My understanding of the Miranda law is pretty much as you explained it; police are not required to read him his rights. I had understood that Miranda was only legally required if they are going to interrogate him, and before they do so, otherwise his statements are not admissible in court.

I'm thinking with the circumstantial evidence, direct testimony won't be needed at trial in order to secure a conviction.

[truebluegreen]

52. Shouldn't be admissable.