Justice Sotomayor dissent today, re: Miranda:

[elleng]

'Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court's newest member, wrote a strongly worded dissent for the court's liberals, saying the majority's decision ''turns Miranda upside down.''

''Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent -- which counterintuitively, requires them to speak,'' she said. ''At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so. Those results, in my view, find no basis in Miranda or our subsequent cases and are inconsistent with the fair-trial principles on which those precedents are grounded.''

Van Chester Thompkins was arrested for murder in 2001 and interrogated by police for three hours. At the beginning, Thompkins was read his Miranda rights and said he understood.

The officers in the room said Thompkins said little during the interrogation, occasionally answering ''yes,'' ''no,'' ''I don't know,'' nodding his head and making eye contact as his responses. But when one of the officers asked him if he prayed for forgiveness for ''shooting that boy down,'' Thompkins said, ''Yes.'''

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/06/01/us/politics/AP-US-Supreme-Court-Miranda-Rights.html?hp

The entire decision:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1470.pdf




http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/06/01/us/politics/AP-US-Supreme-Court-Miranda-Rights.html?hp

[Captain Hilts]

1. Good on her! The ruling is a crime. nt

[indepat]

3. That's what felonious ones do: churn out one crime after another

:P

[izquierdista]

2. Thank FSM for strongly worded dissents!

That'll show 'em!

[Old Troop]

4. Miranda is so 1960s. Dammit, this is the 21st Century!!

[midnight]

5. The supreme court makes another decision that destroys this country.

"This decision means that police can keep shooting questions at a suspect who refuses to talk as long as they want in hopes that the person will crack and give them some information, said Richard Friedman, a University of Michigan law professor."http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/06/01/us/politics/AP-US-Supreme-Court-Miranda-Rights.html?_r=1&hp

[elleng]

6. Unfortunately, its true.

[SusanaMontana41]

7. Since when did we have to invoke our rights?

Aren't they guaranteed by the Constitution? I thought that was how it worked in the United States.

Having said that, Justice Sotomayor is proving how great a choice she was for the Supreme Court. Obama hit a home run with her.

[SusanaMontana41]

8. I guess when you're under oath you can invoke your right against self incrimination.

But suspects aren't put under oath by the police ... I am confused.

[elleng]

9. Correct.

And not REQUIRED to speak to police, when being questioned, not under oath. NOW, MOST IMPORTANT to know to NOT SAY ANYTHING, because whatever you do say can/will be used against you, even if you didn't WANT to say anything.

[elleng]

10. Yes but . . . .

Freedom isn't free.

We have to assert our rights, and know enough to not say anything at all to police, like, 'Oh, my G-d, I'm sorry,' which is what happened here. Actually, he told cops, after they asked (manipulated) if he believed and whether he had asked G-d's help/forgiveness. He said, 'Yes.' > bad law.

:-(

[Daveparts still]

11. God Knows

even when the little sparrow falls that's wonderful, but what difference does it make if the sparrow still falls? (Mark Twain)